{
  "id": 8609061,
  "name": "T. C. CLARK v. J. H. DILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Dill",
  "decision_date": "1935-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 421"
    }
  ],
  "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": "55 S. E., 425",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S. E., 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657343
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S. E., 62",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655739
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S. E., 302",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652007
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2714,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7698562039619494e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7112204225033969
    },
    "sha256": "2e41b8c84c1c64556dbc3aeb7eaef16976dfa180ea13ec0a16529518050cbd8c",
    "simhash": "1:d6698bdbccbb0fdb",
    "word_count": 466
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. C. CLARK v. J. H. DILL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff brings this special proceeding under Chapter 9 of the Consolidated Statutes to establish the dividing line between his land and an adjoining tract owned by the defendant. He alleges that the boundary line between the two tracts is in dispute, and further, that the defendant has trespassed across the line and committed waste upon plaintiff\u2019s land, the territory in dispute.\nThe defendant answered and denied plaintiff\u2019s title; whereupon the proceeding was transferred to the civil issue docket. Brown v. Hutchinson, 155 N. C., 205, 71 S. E., 302.\nUpon the trial, the defendant tendered issues of title, as well as of boundary, and excepted to the refusal of the court to submit the former. Smith v. Johnson, 137 N. C., 43, 49 S. E., 62.\nThe merit in appellant\u2019s exception is dissipated by the following statement in the case on appeal: \u201cFrom the testimony of both plaintiff and defendant, the title to the J. H. Dill land was never in dispute and the title to the Clark land was not brought into dispute except as to the question of where the true line should run between them.\u201d\nThe case was tried purely as a proceeding to establish the boundary line between the land admittedly occupied by the plaintiff and the adjoining land admittedly occupied by the defendant. It is provided by C. S., 362, that the \u201coccupation of land constitutes sufficient ownership for the purposes of this chapter.\u201d Williams v. Hughes, 124 N. C., 3, 32 S. E., 325. The title was not really in dispute. Woody v. Fountain, 143 N. C., 67, 55 S. E., 425.\nThe record contains no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roberts & Baley and Calvin, R. Edney for plaintiff.",
      "John H. McElroy for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. C. CLARK v. J. H. DILL.\n(Filed 18 September, 1935.)\nBoundaries A a: Appeal and Error J e \u2014 Occupation is sufficient to sustain special proceeding to establish boundary.\nIn a special proceeding under O. S., ch. 9, to establish the dividing line between adjoining tracts of land, title is not a prerequisite, C. S., 362, and where it is admitted in the case on appeal that plaintiff\u2019s title was not in dispute, and that defendant\u2019s title was not in dispute except as to the true boundary line, the refusal of the court to submit an issue as to plaintiff\u2019s title, in addition to the issue as to the true boundary line, will not be held for error.\nAppeal by defendant from Warliclc, J., 'at April Term, 1935, of MADISON.\nSpecial proceeding to establish the dividing line between the lands of plaintiff and defendant, adjoining landowners.\nFrom a verdict and judgment in accordance with plaintiff\u2019s contention, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nRoberts & Baley and Calvin, R. Edney for plaintiff.\nJohn H. McElroy for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 488
}