{
  "id": 8604020,
  "name": "J. M. GAINEY v. J. C. GAINEY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gainey v. Gainey",
  "decision_date": "1932-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "190",
  "last_page": "191",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 190"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S. E., 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S. E., 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606168
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S. E., 700",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C., 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2627,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071394895995867
    },
    "sha256": "dd47380bb8f4eb73f9b671523aa7cdce25ceb441aee043f55d10ca952c856e50",
    "simhash": "1:c741a63d4a53b738",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. GAINEY v. J. C. GAINEY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe plaintiff recovered in the justice\u2019s court, but, on appeal to the Superior Court, his claim for lien was denied and the action dismissed as to the landlord, Jesse B. Lee. His Honor was of opinion that, under the decision in Cook v. Cobb, 101 N. C., 68, 1 S. E., 700, the plaintiff\u2019s claim, or notice of lien, was not made out in sufficient detail, \u201cspecifying the . . . labor performed, and the time thereof,\u201d the wages he was to receive, how and when payable, etc. And further, it was not made to appear that said purported notice of claim was filed \u201cin the office of the nearest justice of peace\u201d as required by C. S., 2469.\nWe cannot say there was error in the ruling. Hdw. House v. Percival, ante, 6; Construction Co. v. Journal, 198 N. C., 273, 151 S. E., 631. At least it has not been made to appear, and the burden is on appellant to show error. King v. Elliott, 197 N. C., 93, 147 S. E., 701, is not in conflict with Coolc v. Cobb, supra, nor with our present holding.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Best for plaintiff.",
      "Clifford & Williams for defendant, Jesse B. Lee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. GAINEY v. J. C. GAINEY et al.\n(Filed 21 September, 1932.)\nAppeal and Error J d \u2014 Burden of showing error is on appellant.\nWhere the plaintiff\u2019s claim for a crop lien for labor done in its production is denied in the Superior Court on the ground that the claim of lien was not sufficiently specific in regard to the wages to be paid and the time and amount of work, etc., O. S., 2469, and on appeal to the Supreme Court it is not made to appear that there was error in the ruling, the judgment will be affirmed, the burden of showing error being on the appellant.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gowper, Special Judge, at April Term, 1932, of HARNETT.\nCivil action for debt and to enforce laborer\u2019s lien on crops.\nThe plaintiff alleges that he worked for his brother, J. C. Gainey, during the year 1931 as a farm laborer; that they cultivated 37 acres of cotton, 5 acres of corn and one acre in other crops on the lands of Jesse B. Lee and Mrs. Martha Lee in Harnett County; that his brother is indebted to him in the sum of $195.00 for work done and labor performed on said crops from 1 January, 1931, to 15 August, 1931; that the plaintiff filed lien with G. F. Owen, a justice of the peace, on 17 October, 1931; that the crops in question have been taken by the landlord, Jesse B. Lee. Wherefore, plaintiff asks judgment for his debt, and for a lien upon said crops.\nJudgment by confession against J. 0. Gainey for the amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim; action dismissed as to Jesse B. Lee and claim for lien denied.\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nJames Best for plaintiff.\nClifford & Williams for defendant, Jesse B. Lee."
  },
  "file_name": "0190-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 259
}