{
  "id": 8627402,
  "name": "D. S. SMITH v. H. C. WHITLEY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Whitley",
  "decision_date": "1926-11-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "825",
  "last_page": "826",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 825"
    }
  ],
  "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": 137,
    "char_count": 1686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "sha256": "74d5a0617a49820279d2ffe3867e01c8679a427c194d76fbfc1303178e7385b5",
    "simhash": "1:df4865febbfdb305",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. S. SMITH v. H. C. WHITLEY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cublam.\nDefendants\u2019 assignments of error upon this appeal cannot be sustained.\nPlaintiff is seized in fee and in possession of tbe land described in tbe complaint, subject to tbe rights of defendants; defendants, by virtue of reservations in deeds under wbicb plaintiff owns said land, own tbe minerals in same. Defendants went upon tbe land and did tbe various acts thereon as alleged in tbe complaint. Tbe jury upon competent evidence has so found. Under a charge wbicb is free from error, such acts, or some of them, were found by tbe jury to constitute trespasses upon tbe rights of plaintiff. Tbe damages were assessed by tbe jury, upon sufficient evidence, under instructions wbicb are well sustained, both upon principle and by authoritative decisions of this Court. Tbe judgment is affirmed. There is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cublam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "Hartsdl & Eartsell, B. L. Smith & Son for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. S. SMITH v. H. C. WHITLEY et al.\n(Filed 24 November, 1926.)\nAppeal by defendants from Stack, J., at February Term, 1926, of Stanly. No error.\nAction to recover damages for trespass upon land. Defendants allege that such acts as they committed on the land described in the complaint were lawful by reason of their ownership of the minerals in said land, under a reservation in the deeds in plaintiff\u2019s chain of title. The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows :\n1. Did the defendants enter upon and commit trespasses upon the land of the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n2. If so, what damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of defendants ? Answer: $200.\nFrom judgment upon this verdict defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nHartsdl & Eartsell, B. L. Smith & Son for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0825-02",
  "first_page_order": 899,
  "last_page_order": 900
}