{
  "id": 8619595,
  "name": "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenkins v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1926-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "188",
  "last_page": "189",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 188"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 N. C., 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272103
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N. C., 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655712
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653579
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0515-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3075,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2159063064067356e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8667860558665775
    },
    "sha256": "81b94052af6819ba230d8f41999dd457581b3ba3c841e8ed16e7cc7cc7fd9185",
    "simhash": "1:77e908ed3583a4c4",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stagy, C. J.\nThe appeal presents the question as to whether the defendant is entitled to a jury trial on any of his exceptions filed to the report of the referee. \"We think not.\nWhen a compulsory reference is ordered, the party who would preserve the right to have the issues found by a jury, must duly except to the order of reference; and, upon the coming in of the referee\u2019s report, if it be adverse, he must file \u00abexceptions thereto in apt time, properly tender appropriate issues, and demand a jury trial on each of the issues tendered, and, if the referee\u2019s report be in his favor, he must seasonably tender issues on tbe exceptions, if any, filed to tbe report by tbe adverse party, and demand a jury trial tbereon, or else tbe right to bave tbe controverted facts determined by a jury will be deemed to be waived, so far as be is concerned. Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515; Baker v. Edwards, 176 N. C., 229.\nTbe reason tbe successful party before tbe referee is required to tender issues on tbe exceptions filed by bis adversary and demand a jury trial tbereon, in order to preserve bis right to bave tbe controverted facts settled by tbe jury, is apparent when it is remembered that tbe losing party before tbe referee may waive bis right to a jury trial on exceptions filed by him or withdraw bis demand therefor at any time. Robinson v. Johnson, 174 N. C., 232.\nHere, it is conceded, tbe defendant tendered no issues on tbe exceptions filed by him to tbe referee\u2019s' report. This was a waiver of bis right to bave tbe controverted matters of fact determined by a jury. Simpson v. Scronce, 152 N. C., 594.\nOther objections to tbe validity of tbe trial were argued on tbe bearing, but as they cannot be sustained, and present no new question of law, we deem it unnecessary to deal with them in an opinion.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stagy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alexander Lassiter and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "W. H, S. Burgwyn, E. R. Tyler and Stanly Winborne for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERBERT JENKINS v. PAUL H. PARKER.\n(Filed 22 September, 1926.)\nReference \u2014 Trial by Jury \u2014 Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Issues.\nIn order for either iiarty to a compulsory reference under our statute to preserve bis right to a trial by jury, he must except to the order at the time it is made, and preserve this right by filing exceptions to the report of the referee, if adverse, and further tender proper issues and demand a jury trial thereon. If the report of the referee be favorable, he must tender issues and demand a jury trial on his adversary\u2019s exceptions.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, J., at October Term, 1925, of HERTFORD.\nCivil action for trespass, with title to land in dispute and involving a complicated question of boundary.\nA compulsory reference was had under C, S., 573, exceptions duly filed to the report of the referee, and a jury trial demanded on some of the exceptions, but no issues tendered.\nFrom a judgment adopting the report of the referee, with additional findings by the judge, and denying the motion for a jury trial on exceptions taken to the referee's report, the defendant appeals.\nAlexander Lassiter and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.\nW. H, S. Burgwyn, E. R. Tyler and Stanly Winborne for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0188-01",
  "first_page_order": 262,
  "last_page_order": 263
}