{
  "id": 8605204,
  "name": "W. L. PEACOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and HENRY MOYE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peacock v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1932-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "216",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 216"
    }
  ],
  "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": "50 S. E., 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269234
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0281-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2405,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033616245580341
    },
    "sha256": "1927ebf5f046296ea5f3dbdcfbce8b5ff7cc8ddaee318ca94b384ab7cd880ef1",
    "simhash": "1:807b35a7f20953fc",
    "word_count": 414
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. L. PEACOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and HENRY MOYE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe evidence offered by the plaintiff at the trial of this action tends to show that the land described in the complaint was conveyed to plaintiff by a deed containing the following language:\n\u201cExcepting from the operation of this deed all rights of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad in and to the southern portion of said property.\u201d\nPlaintiff offered no evidence tending to show tbe nature, character or extent of tbe rights of tbe defendant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company in and to the land in controversy, or that the defendants were claiming under the exception in his deed.\nThe principle that the burden of proof is on one claiming under an exception in a deed or grant to show that his claim comes within the exception (Laffoon v. Kerner, 138 N. C., 281, 50 S. E., 654), is not applicable in the instant case, for the reason that it does not appear that the defendants are claiming under the exception. The burden was upon the plaintiff and not upon the defendants to offer evidence tending to show that the possession of the defendants was not within their rights. In the absence of such evidence, there was no error in the judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit. The judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Faison Thomson, J ames N. Smith and, Hugh Brown Campbell for plaintiff.",
      "W. B. B. Gui\u00f3n and Dickinson & Freeman for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. L. PEACOCK v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and HENRY MOYE.\n(Filed 21 September, 1932.)\nEjectment O b \u2014 Where party does not claim under exception in deed rule that claimant must show claim is within exception does not apply.\nIn an action to recover lands the plaintiff introduced evidence of his title by deed containing an exception in favor of the defendant, but offered no evidence that the defendant\u2019s use of the land was not within the exception, and the defendant introduced no evidence: Held,, a judgment of nonsuit was properly entered, the burden being upon the plaintiff to prove that the possession of the defendant was wrongful, and the rule that a party claiming under an exception in a deed has the burden of proving that his claim is within the exception does not apply, there being nothing to show that the defendant was claiming under the exception.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harris, J., at January Term, 1932, of WayNE.\nAffirmed.\nFrom judgment dismissing tbis action as of nonsuit, tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nJ. Faison Thomson, J ames N. Smith and, Hugh Brown Campbell for plaintiff.\nW. B. B. Gui\u00f3n and Dickinson & Freeman for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0216-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 285
}