{
  "id": 8632449,
  "name": "COLLINS v. YOUNG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1928-03-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "853",
  "last_page": "854",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 853"
    }
  ],
  "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": 210,
    "char_count": 3201,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "sha256": "3123039f3ca03c7e6da0bc4c099e81ea205abe0a2b1e8a0849604b328fb246b7",
    "simhash": "1:6e21290a1b020076",
    "word_count": 570
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "COLLINS v. YOUNG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe plaintiff arrived at bis true corner by measuring from tbe bub of tbe town, wbicb was an iron stake or pin set in tbe ground about tbe corner of tbe McLeod building. Tbe surveyor appointed by tbe court testified tbat tbe bub was tbe proper beginning point to locate any lot in tbe town of Angier, but testified further: \u201cI could not find tbe bub, altbougb I bad it dug for. A brick wall was located at tbat point, but tbe bub or iron stake seemed to be missing.\u201d Other witnesses for plaintiff testified tbat they knew tbe location of tbe bub, and tbat tbe bub was at tbe corner of tbe McLeod building.\nTbe judge charged tbe jury as follows: \u201cSo tbe burden in this case, gentlemen of tbe jury, is on tbe plaintiff to satisfy you from tbe evidence and by tbe greater weight of tbe evidence, tbat be is tbe owner of tbe six inches of land in dispute. Tbat is all there is in dispute, six inches, between tbe lots or on tbe lots of plaintiff and defendant.\u201d\nThere was no specific exception to this charge.\nFurthermore, tbe complaint alleged tbat tbe construction of tbe brick building, as proposed by tbe defendant, would overlap plaintiff\u2019s line about six inches and would deprive plaintiff \u201cof bis property rights in said strip of land without due process of law.\u201d\nConstruing together tbe pleadings, tbe charge of tbe court, and tbe issue submitted, it is obvious tbat an issue of fact only was presented. Tbe jury has answered this issue adverse to tbe plaintiff, and we find no error in tbe record warranting a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dupree & BtricYlalnd and Young & Young for plaintiff.",
      "J. B. Baggett and J. G. Clifford for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COLLINS v. YOUNG.\n(Filed 7 March, 1928.)\nCivil actioN before Lyon, Emergency Judge, at October Term, 1921, of HaRNETT.\nThe plaintiff is the owner of the southern half of lot No. 2, Block B, as shown on the plan of the town of Angier. The defendant is the owner of the northern portion of lot No. 1 in said block. Lots 1 and 2 adjoin. After purchasing the land plaintiff erected a, two-story brick building thereon and offered evidence tending to show that at the time his brick building was erected he set his northern wall six inches from his line. The defendant, who owns a lot to the south of plaintiff\u2019s lot, began the erection of a brick building and proposed to locate the northern wall of his building along the' line of plaintiff\u2019s wall. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit to restrain the defendant from erecting said wall upon the ground that the defendant\u2019s wall would overlap plaintiff\u2019s land six inches, \u201cthereby placing about six inches of the defendant\u2019s building on the land of plaintiff, . . . which acts on the part of the defendant will deprive plaintiff of his property rights in said strip of land without due process of law and to his great danger and damage.\u201d The defendant denied that the six inches of land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff, alleging that he was the owner of the six-inch strip of land.\nThe court submitted to the jury the following issue: \u201cIs the plaintiff the owner of the six inches of land in dispute ?\u201d\nThe jury answered the issue \u201cNo,\u201d and from judgment upon the verdict plaintiff appealed.\nDupree & BtricYlalnd and Young & Young for plaintiff.\nJ. B. Baggett and J. G. Clifford for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0853-01",
  "first_page_order": 925,
  "last_page_order": 926
}