{
  "id": 8622840,
  "name": "G. M. BOONE v. BELLE F. COLLINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boone v. Collins",
  "decision_date": "1931-12-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "12",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 12"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 S. E., 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 S. E., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620279
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 S. E., 253",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S. E., 273",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651406
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2984464492592306e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8717415571332537
    },
    "sha256": "165dcde23f84dfa902c3da13cc3fe256b6dbbef9c2c8d6401c0130b7d642c136",
    "simhash": "1:6f40adfd5d72df8d",
    "word_count": 502
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. M. BOONE v. BELLE F. COLLINS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nThis is a special proceeding to establish the dividing line between adjoining landowners. The plaintiff says the line is at one place, the \u201cSolid Line\u201d .shown on the map, and the defendant says it is at another, the \u201cDash Line\u201d shown thereon.\nThe burden of establishing the true location of the boundary line was . on the plaintiff. Hill v. Dalton, 140 N. C., 9, 52 S. E., 273. But this was inadvertently placed on both parties at the same time. Power Co. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 231, 139 S. E., 381. Similar instructions were held for error in Garris v. Harrington, 167 N. C., 86, 83 S. E., 253, and Tillotson v. Fulp, 172 N. C., 499, 90 S. E., 500. The burden of proving the affirmative of a single issue cannot rest on both sides at the same time. Carr v. Bizzell, 192 N. C., 212, 134 S. E., 462; Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398.\nThe rule as to the burden of proof constitutes a substantial right, and its erroneous placing is reversible error. Hosiery Co. v. Express Co., 184 N. C., 478, 114 S. E., 823.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Grover G. Davis for plaintiff.",
      "Joe. E. Johnson' Morgan, Stamey & Ward and Johnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. M. BOONE v. BELLE F. COLLINS.\n(Filed 23 December, 1931.)\nEvidence C a \u2014 Where the burden of proof is placed on both parties at the same time a new trial will be awarded.\nIn a special proceeding to establish tbe dividing line between adjoining landowners tbe burden of proving tbe true boundary is on tbe plaintiff, and where tbe trial judge inadvertently places the burden of the proof on both parties at tbe same time a new trial will be awarded, tbe rule as to tbe burden of proof constituting a substantial right.\nAppeal by defendant from Harwood, Special Judge, at May Term, 1931, of Haywood.\nSpecial proceeding to establish dividing line between adjoining lands of plaintiff and defendant, designated, by common consent, as \u201ctbe M. P. Francis line.\u201d\nIt was agreed that tbe true location of tbe boundary line between plaintiff\u2019s and defendant\u2019s lands was either tbe \u201cSolid Line\u201d or tbe \u201cDash Line,\u201d as shown on map made by court surveyor, tbe plaintiff contending that it was tbe former and tbe defendant that it was tbe latter.\nTbe court instructed tbe jury as follows:\n\u201cIf tbe plaintiff has satisfied you by tbe greater weight of the evidence that tbe solid line is tbe true location as indicated on tbe map of tbe M. P. Francis line you will write \u2018Solid Line\u2019; and if the defendant has satisfied you by tbe greater weight of tbe evidence that tbe dash line is tbe true location, then you will write \u2018Dash Line.\u2019 \u201d Exception.\nTbe jury returned tbe following verdict: \u201cWhat is tbe true location of tbe M. P. Francis line ? Answer: Solid Line.\u201d\nFrom a judgment on tbe verdict for plaintiff, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nGrover G. Davis for plaintiff.\nJoe. E. Johnson' Morgan, Stamey & Ward and Johnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0012-01",
  "first_page_order": 78,
  "last_page_order": 79
}