{
  "id": 8632654,
  "name": "O. E. HATLEY et al. v. W. C. HAMMER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hatley v. Hammer",
  "decision_date": "1928-03-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "865",
  "last_page": "866",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 865"
    }
  ],
  "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": 179,
    "char_count": 2032,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "sha256": "64a3325f6688a1c6ea9802ef923e68b5819db5290315ea84885f8ce569ef62ab",
    "simhash": "1:5d5aad41b216af31",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. E. HATLEY et al. v. W. C. HAMMER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nOn 12 April, 1884,. Joseph Riddle and bis wife executed a mortgage to John Williams conveying tbe land in controversy. Tbe mortgage was registered 7 May, 1884, and some time after Christmas, 1889, tbe land was sold under tbe power conferred by tbe mortgagors. J. J. Hatley became tbe bigbest bidder, but Jobn Williams took tbe land and went into possession. There was evidence for tbe plaintiffs tending to show continuous possession by themselves and those under whom they claim title until 1897, and afterwards in 1901 and 1902. There was other evidence also; but on behalf of the defendants there was at least some evidence in contradiction, the probative force of which was a matter for the jury. Under these circumstances a directed verdict was improper, and for this reason the defendants are entitled to a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Seawell & McPherson for plaintiffs.",
      "Siler & Barber and W. B. Brock for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. E. HATLEY et al. v. W. C. HAMMER et al.\n(Filed 28 March, 1928.)\nTrial \u2014 Directed Verdict \u2014 Directed Verdict Erroneous on Conflicting Evidence.\nA directed verdict to an issue is erroneous when the evidence thereon is conflicting.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady, J., at August Term, 1927, of Chatham.\nAction for tbe recovery of land and damages for cutting timber. Tbe jury were instructed to answer tbe first issue \u201cYes\u201d if they found tbe facts to be as testified to by all tbe witnesses. Tbe following verdict was returned:\n1. Are tbe plaintiffs tbe owners and entitled to tbe possession of tbe tract of land described in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. If so, have tbe defendants wrongfully entered upon said lands and cut timber thereon as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\n3. Is tbe plaintiff\u2019s cause of action barred by either of tbe several statutes of limitations pleaded in tbe answer? Answer: No.\n4. What damages are tbe plaintiffs entitled to recover of tbe defendants, if anything, for such wrongful acts ? Answer: $120.\nJudgment for tbe plaintiffs and appeal by defendants upon assigned error.\nSeawell & McPherson for plaintiffs.\nSiler & Barber and W. B. Brock for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0865-01",
  "first_page_order": 937,
  "last_page_order": 938
}