{
  "id": 8655934,
  "name": "HOLLY SPRINGS LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. W. L. BREWER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holly Springs Land & Improvement Co. v. Brewer",
  "decision_date": "1922-04-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 248"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271010
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654086
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/151/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661088
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0517-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 2383,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20764782039416196
    },
    "sha256": "3027bc5a93a5191781cd6ca4e2c771937bb8e9cd3e3e633431b96892097d0165",
    "simhash": "1:6d1defe79efa97d7",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HOLLY SPRINGS LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. W. L. BREWER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nIt is alleged in tbe complaint that on 17 February, 1916, I. D. Royal and bis wife executed and delivered to tbe plaintiff a deed conveying certain timber situated on tbe land therein described, and that after tbe registration of tbe deed these grantors conveyed a part of said land to tbe defendant. It is also alleged that for the purpose of acquiring title to a portion of tbe plaintiff\u2019s timber tbe defendant has endeavored to binder and delay tbe plaintiff in removing it, and to this end bas threatened and intimidated the plaintiff\u2019s employees, and with evil intent bas bad one of them arrested and prosecuted for air alleged breach of the criminal law, and otherwise bas wrongfully obstructed the plaintiff\u2019s right of removal. The defendant denies the material allegations of the complaint, and alleges that the plaintiff has wrongfully cut and removed a large quantity of timber of dimensions smaller than the plaintiff\u2019s deed specifies, and has otherwise damaged the land.\nIt is unnecessary to analyze the testimony of the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, which covers about twenty-four pages of the record; but a careful perusal of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff leads us to the conclusion that the jury should have been permitted to determine the controversy between the parties. Daniels v. R. R., 136 N. C., 517; Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 111; Morton v. Dumber Co., 152 N. C., 54; Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 4; Collins v. Casualty Co., 172 N. C., 543; Bush v. McPherson, 176 N. C., 563; Newby v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 34. The judgment of nonsuit is reversed, and this will be certified for further proceedings.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. J. Olive, Little & Barnes, and J. W. Bailey for plaintiff.",
      "H. E. Norris and Armistead Jones & Son for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOLLY SPRINGS LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. W. L. BREWER.\n(Filed 5 April, 1922.)\nTrials \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury.\nIn this action, involving the right of plaintiff to cut certain timber on lands of defendant, alleged by the latter to be under the size called for in the former\u2019s conveyance, it is helll that a judgment as of nonsuit was improvidently entered upon the evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Connor, J., at tbe second May Term, 1921, of Wake.\nAt tbe conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, bis Honor rendered judgment of nonsuit.\nPlaintiff excepted and appealed.\nP. J. Olive, Little & Barnes, and J. W. Bailey for plaintiff.\nH. E. Norris and Armistead Jones & Son for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 308,
  "last_page_order": 309
}