{
  "id": 8621780,
  "name": "T. D. BRYSON et al. v. J. W. McCOY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryson v. McCoy",
  "decision_date": "1927-12-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "822",
  "last_page": "822",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 822"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 S. E., 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0471-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1431,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072163280561917
    },
    "sha256": "8646e3db17484e0c9b2d21fce3fbb0fa5b282585bd86ee360521d19fb67a7fbf",
    "simhash": "1:a21a7c72d6b5464c",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. D. BRYSON et al. v. J. W. McCOY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CueiaM.\nWe beld at tbe last term in tbis case, ante, 91, tbat tbe defendants\u2019 tax deed was void for want of sufficient description, and tbat tbe statute upon wbicb tbe defendants stressfully rely, O. S., 8034, applies only to valid tax deeds and bas no reference to deeds tbat are void. Ex rdhilo mhil fit is one maxim tbat permits of no exception; it is as constant as it is self-evident. Chemical Co. v. Turner, 190 N. C., 471, 130 S. E., 154.\nTbe ease bas been tried in accordance with our former opinion, bence tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. W. Bell for plaintiffs.",
      "F. 0. Christopher and Edmund B. Norvell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. D. BRYSON et al. v. J. W. McCOY et al.\n(Filed 21 December, 1927.)\nAppeal by defendants from Harding, J., at August Term, 1927, of Cherokee.\nCivil action to remove cloud from title, tried upon tbe following-issues :\n\u201c1. Are tbe plaintiffs, T. D. Bryson, D. R. Bryson and Mary Gr. Tip-ton, beirs at law of Col. T. D. Bryson, tbe owners of tbe land described in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. Is tbe tax deed from T. N. Bates, sheriff, to J. E. McCoy, set out in tbe complaint, dated 9 May, 1907, and registered 1 June, 1907, in Deed Book 19 (48) p. 95, a cloud upon plaintiffs\u2019 title to tbeir said lands? Answer: Yes.\u201d\nFrom a judgment on tbe verdict declaring defendants\u2019 tax deed void and removing same as cloud on plaintiffs\u2019 title, tbe defendants appeal, assigning errors.\nM. W. Bell for plaintiffs.\nF. 0. Christopher and Edmund B. Norvell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0822-01",
  "first_page_order": 890,
  "last_page_order": 890
}