{
  "id": 8625420,
  "name": "In re Will of SUDIE HARGROVE",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Hargrove",
  "decision_date": "1934-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "280",
  "last_page": "281",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 280"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 S. E., 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629018
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S. E., 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 S. E., 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658400
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S. E., 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N. C., 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626785
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S. E., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630027
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0307-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2553,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.661697915056443e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6944397144389499
    },
    "sha256": "4706d3861e3e432956fa60193659e1fecd2e654ecde7e475862d8c49ee62ddd2",
    "simhash": "1:5fff36501e7d5df9",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Will of SUDIE HARGROVE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbis is tbe same case tbat was before us on two former appeals, reported in 206 N. C., 307, 173 S. E., 577, and 205 N. C., 72, 169 S. E., 812.\nTbe questions now sought to be presented are not properly before us for decision. In tbe first place, tbe propounders are not tbe \u201cparties aggrieved\u201d by tbe order setting aside tbe verdict within tbe meaning of C. S., 632 \u2014 such action being favorable to them \u2014 and, in tbe next place, \u201ctbis Court will not interfere with tbe discretion of tbe trial judge in setting aside a verdict as being against the weight of the evidence.\u201d Edwards v. Phifer, 120 N. C., 405, 27 S. E., 79; Brink v. Black, 74 N. C., 329; Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.\nThe appeal was improvidently taken, and must be dismissed. McCullock v. R. R., 146 N. C., 316, 59 S. E., 882; Guy v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 118, 172 S. E., 885.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Faison Thomson, Needham Outlaw, Hewry E. Faison, Henry A. Grady, Jr., and Hugh Brown Campbell for the caveators.",
      "Butler & Butler for propounders."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Will of SUDIE HARGROVE.\n(Filed 31 October, 1934.)\n1. Appeal and Error A f \u2014 Propounders are not \u201cparties aggrieved\u201d by-order setting aside verdict in favor of caveators.\nIn tbis caveat proceeding tbe jury found against propounders, and tbe trial court set aside tbe verdict as being against tbe weight of tbe evidence and ordered a new trial. Propounders appealed, assigning as error tbe refusal of tbe court to sustain their pleas in bar: Held, tbe pro-pounders are not tbe \u201cparties aggrieved\u201d by tbe order setting aside the verdict, O. S., 632, and cannot maintain tbe appeal.\n\u2022 2. Appeal and Error 3 a\u2014\nTbe Supreme Court will not interfere with tbe discretion of tbe trial judge in setting aside a verdict as being against tbe weight of tbe evidence.\nAppeal by propounders from Frizzelle, J., at May Term, 1934, of SAMPSON.\nIssue of devisavit vel non, raised by a caveat to tbe will of Sudie Hargrove, late of Sampson County, based upon alleged mental incapacity.\nTbe jury found tbat tbe alleged testatrix did not bave sufficient mental capacity to execute tbe paper-writing propounded, and tbat tbe same was not tbe last will and testament of Sudie Hargrove.\nTbe court being of opinion tbat tbe verdict- was contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence, on tbe determinative issues, set tbe same aside, in bis discretion, and ordered tbe issue of devisavit reinstated on tbe calendar for trial at a later term.\nPropounders appeal, assigning as error tbe refusal of tbe court to sustain tbeir pleas in bar.\nJ. Faison Thomson, Needham Outlaw, Hewry E. Faison, Henry A. Grady, Jr., and Hugh Brown Campbell for the caveators.\nButler & Butler for propounders."
  },
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page_order": 348,
  "last_page_order": 349
}