{
  "id": 8616228,
  "name": "R. H. CLARK et al. v. SAPHRONIA HENDERSON et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Henderson",
  "decision_date": "1930-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "86",
  "last_page": "86",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 86"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 839",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1766,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.43,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5231092623546778
    },
    "sha256": "f7bd81dc72d9e6adc1b189328a08374adb8c0f206434060aba1a2ff6e9cbef67",
    "simhash": "1:56290603bb2837d4",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. H. CLARK et al. v. SAPHRONIA HENDERSON et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe only assignment of error set out in the transcript filed in this Court on plaintiffs\u2019 appeal, is based on their exception to the judgment. There is no error in the judgment. It is supported by the verdict.\nThe contention of plaintiffs that there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury with respect to the first issue, although discussed in the brief filed for plaintiffs in this Court, cannot be considered for the reason that this contention is not presented by an assignment of error made as required by the rules of this Court. See Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 192 N. C., 839. Rule 19, sec. 3.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Coleman Ramsay and J ohn II. McElroy for plaintiffs.",
      "J ohn A. H&ndmclcs and Guy V. Roberts for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. H. CLARK et al. v. SAPHRONIA HENDERSON et al.\n(Filed 19 December, 1930.)\nAppeal and Efrror P a \u2014 In order for matter to be considered on appeal it must be presented by assignment of error.\nMatter discussed in appellant\u2019s brief must be presented by assignment of error to be considered on appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from MacRae, Special Judge, presiding at March Term, 1930, of MadisoN.\nNo error.\nThis is an action to recover possession of land upon the allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to the possession of the land described therein. This allegation is denied by defendants in their answer.\nThe first issue submitted to the jury was answered as follows:\n\u201c1. Are the plaintiffs the owners and entitled to the possession of the land described in the complaint? Answer: No.\u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict that plaintiffs are not the owners, and are not entitled to recover possession of the land described in the complaint, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.\nJ. Coleman Ramsay and J ohn II. McElroy for plaintiffs.\nJ ohn A. H&ndmclcs and Guy V. Roberts for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0086-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 154
}