{
  "id": 8653937,
  "name": "JOHNSON WADE v. HENRY W. GIBSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wade v. Gibson",
  "decision_date": "1923-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "478",
  "last_page": "479",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 478"
    }
  ],
  "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": 244,
    "char_count": 3618,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "sha256": "ceb276cd92bd44bc6e60205f6481d2d9350cbdde715390b4fd3a321df5bf560c",
    "simhash": "1:eaa63a34d154afe5",
    "word_count": 607
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHNSON WADE v. HENRY W. GIBSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoice, J.\nOn the hearing, plaintiff introduced a line of deeds covering the land in controversy, and offered evidence tending to. show ownership, and that defendant was in possession of a small part of said land, asserting title to same. Defendant, showing deeds for a lot adjoining plaiptiff\u2019s, claimed and sought to establish title to the locus in quo by adverse possession, and offered evidence iff support o\u00a3 his claim. Evidence in rebuttal by plaintiff. The defendant, a witness in his own behalf, testified to facts tending to show adverse occupation, and on cross-examination said that a judgment by default had been taken against him in the cause and afterwards s\u00e9t aside. That he had employed Mr. Gr. B. Patterson, now dead, to look after his case, and that-Mr. Patterson had told plaintiff he would do so. Thereupon plaintiff\u2019s counsel, in the form of a question, said to witness: \u201cAnd so you are now blaming Mr. Patterson, a good man now dead, for letting judgment be taken against you?\u201d To this the witness made no response. Thereupon defendant was allowed to introduce, over plaintiff\u2019s objection, an affidavit of Mr. Patterson explaining why he had failed to attend to defendant\u2019s cause in proper time, and containing averment further that, after examination of defendant\u2019s deeds and testimony of his possession, affiant is of opinion that defendant has a record title to said lands and has been in the peaceable and quiet possession of same for more than seven years prior to commencement of this action, and has a good and meritorious defense to same.\nIn our opinion the admission of this affidavit over plaintiff\u2019s objection was clearly reversible error. It was not competent on the issue, and if it had been, was not in the form required for its proper reception as evidence. True, his Honor, in admitting the affidavit, said that it would not be considered -in the question of title or possession, but only to repel the charge or insinuation that defendant blamed Mr. Patterson, but the affidavit was irrelevant and incompetent for any purpose. And presenting as it did, in defendant\u2019s favor, the opinion of his own attorney on the merits of the issue, its admission was inevitably and highly prejudicial and should not have been received in evidence.\nFor the error indicated there must be a new trial of the issue, and it is so ordered.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoice, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cox & Dunn for plaintiff.",
      "W. H. Weatherspoon and E. EL. Gibson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHNSON WADE v. HENRY W. GIBSON.\n(Filed 21 November, 1923.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Prejudice\u2014New Trials \u2014 Evidence\u2014Judgment by De- . fault Set Aside \u2014 Affidavit as to Merits.\nWhere upon cross-examination the defendant admits that a judgment by default bad been taken against bim, but afterwards set aside, that it was the fault of bis attorney and not of bis own, whereupon the plaintiff\u2019s attorney insinuates that the defendant was laying the blame upon bis former attorney, a good man since deceased, it is prejudicial error to the plaintiff for the trial judge to admit the affidavit of the deceased attorney upon which the judgment by default bad been set aside, giving bis opinion of the merits of the defense, the matter being both irrelevant and not in the form required for the competency of evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harding, J., at March Term, 1923, of SCOTLAND.\nCivil action. The action is to recover a small strip of land alleged to be in the wrongful possession of defendant. There was denial of plaintiff\u2019s ownership, and on issues submitted there was a verdict for defendant. Judgment on the verdict, and plaintiff excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nCox & Dunn for plaintiff.\nW. H. Weatherspoon and E. EL. Gibson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0478-01",
  "first_page_order": 542,
  "last_page_order": 543
}