{
  "id": 8655489,
  "name": "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenkins v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1922-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "125",
  "last_page": "126",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 125"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "sha256": "e5bb6f19cde3eecada0096580d1ec490dca22a3331d0f8b3f59dc56b52fdcb71",
    "simhash": "1:ab308797811053f6",
    "word_count": 354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nThe property in dispute is a tract of land situate in Hertford County, and known as lot No. 1 in the J. H. Connor division of lands. The plaintiff offered in evidence an unbroken and connected chain of title for the said property, making out a prima facie case. The defendant then offered deeds and muniments of title tending to show, as he alleges, a superior right or paramount claim to the same property. But there is a conflict in tbe evidence as to whether the defendant\u2019s deeds cover the locus in quo. This was a matter which the jury alone could settle. The intimation of his Honor was, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to the plaintiff\u2019s cause.\nThe other questions debated before us are not now presented for decision. The cause should' have been submitted to the jury.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alex. Lassiter and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "H. R. Tyler, W. H. S. Burgivyn, and Stanley Winiorne for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER.\n(Filed 8 March, 1922.)\nInstructions \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury \u2014 Trials\u2014Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Descriptions\u2014Title.\nWhere the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of title by his chain of conveyances, and the defendant offers deeds and muniments tending to establish his superior or paramount title to the lands, and there is \u25a0conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant\u2019s deeds cover the locus in quo, an instruction to the jury to find the issue for defendant if they believed the evidence is erroneous as invading the province of the jury to decide upon whether the defendant\u2019s deeds covered the subject of the litigation.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Calvert, J., at October Term, 1921, of HERTFORD.\nCivil action for trespass, involving title to a tract of land. There was a second cause of action set up in the complaint, but this is not now before us for consideration.\nAt the close of all the evidence, his Honor suggested that he would instruct the jury to answer the issue of title in favor of defendant if they believe the evidenc\u00e9.\nTJpon this intimation, the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit and appealed.\nAlex. Lassiter and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.\nH. R. Tyler, W. H. S. Burgivyn, and Stanley Winiorne for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0125-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}