{
  "id": 8627421,
  "name": "JANE McPHERSON and Husband, A. B. McPherson, v. S. B. WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "McPherson v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1933-09-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 N.C. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "160 S. E., 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S. E., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S. E., 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 856",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0856-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.194219434139727e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5920872220735649
    },
    "sha256": "1ce84cd454bc541b26e15e94dde89ee1108c24d29392ea227b3caef335dab7f2",
    "simhash": "1:675acdbf913815ca",
    "word_count": 435
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:31.066060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JANE McPHERSON and Husband, A. B. McPherson, v. S. B. WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt is conceded in appellee\u2019s brief that \u201cthe burden was upon the defendant to show the easement by prescription, or adverse possession,\u201d the defense being an affirmative one. Power Co. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 231, 139 S. E., 381. But in this connection it is asserted that \u201cwhile in disconnected excerpts, it might appear the burden of proof was improperly placed, yet a careful reading of the entire charge will show the jury could not have been misled.\u201d Bechtel v. Weaver, 202 N. C., 856, 164 S. E., 338; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32.\nWe have held in a number of cases that the erroneous placing of the burden of proof in respect to a material matter constitutes reversible error. Power Co. v. Taylor, supra.\nTrue, in the beginning, the plaintiffs had the burden of proof on the issue of trespass, but when the defendant undertook to justify his use of the plaintiffs\u2019 side of the ditch by prescription, or adverse possession, he then assumed the laboring oar. Hayes v. Cotton, 201 N. C., 369, 160 S. E., 453.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. I. Halstead for plaintiffs.",
      "B. Glarence Dozier for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JANE McPHERSON and Husband, A. B. McPherson, v. S. B. WILLIAMS.\n(Filed 20 September, 1933.)\nEvidence B lb \u2014 Burden of proof on affirmative defense is on defendant, and erroneous placing of burden entitled plaintiff to new trial.\nIn an action to recover damages for trespass plaintiff bas the burden of proof on the issue, but defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of prescription and adverse user set up by him as \u00e1 defense, and where the burden of proof on this issue is not properly placed on defendant, a new trial will be awarded, the erroneous placing of the burden of proof on a material matter being reversible error.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Small, J., at March Term, 1933, of Camden.\nCivil action to recover' damages in the amount of $50.00 for alleged trespass in cleaning out ditch which separates lands of plaintiffs and defendant and embanking the dirt and debris, thus dug up, on plaintiffs\u2019 side; and to restrain the defendant from further like trespass in the future.\nThe court placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs, which is assigned as error, the defendant claiming the right to clean out said ditch and to embank the dirt and debris on both' sides thereof by prescription, or adverse user for more than the requisite number of years.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for defendant, from which the plaintiffs appeal.\nW. I. Halstead for plaintiffs.\nB. Glarence Dozier for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 241,
  "last_page_order": 242
}