{
  "id": 8618953,
  "name": "HERMAN DEAN v. A. A. DUVALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dean v. Duvall",
  "decision_date": "1935-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "822",
  "last_page": "824",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 822"
    }
  ],
  "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": "166 S. E., 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 S. E., 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272600,
        11272621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0350-01",
        "/nc/167/0350-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S. E., 693",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270821
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. E., 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596494
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S. E., 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658938
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0272-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3450,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20719702191131606
    },
    "sha256": "dc2a9880d301be2be755ca731d2c9f2fc88fdf1a1d420f13c45858c7ae7bc53a",
    "simhash": "1:8a3fbce96cecdbdc",
    "word_count": 614
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERMAN DEAN v. A. A. DUVALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Ouecam.\nThe defendant contends that the title to the land was in controversy, and that therefore a justice of the peace did not have jurisdiction of the action.\nThe pertinent statutes are C. S., 1476, 1477, and 2365.\nIn proceedings of summary ejectment the title to land is not raised or put in controversy by mere allegation that such controversy exists. McDonald v. Ingram, 124 N. C., 272, 32 S. E., 677; Perry v. Perry, 190 N. C., 125, 129 S. E., 147; Hauser v. Morrison, 146 N. C., 248, 59 S. E., 693; McLaurin v. McIntyre, 167 N. C., 350, 83 S. E., 627; North. Carolina Practice & Procedure, p. 55. See Ins. Co. v. Totten, 203 N. C., 431, 166 S. E., 316.\nThe defendant did not allege facts creating a controversy with respect to the title of the property, but it seems that he attempted to offer evidence that he had given a mortgage or deed of trust on the property, and that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee existed. All such evidence, however, was stricken out. The jury did not answer the issue as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the land or not, and the record is so meager that we are unable to determine the rights of the parties.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Ouecam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. L. McGoy for plaintiff.",
      "Geo. B. Patton and R. D. Sisk for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERMAN DEAN v. A. A. DUVALL.\n(Filed 20 March, 1935.)\nCivil action, before Hill, Special Judge, at August Term, 1934, of Macon.\nThe plaintiff instituted a summary proceeding in ejectment against the defendant before a justice of the peace. The defendant filed an answer denying that he was a tenant of plaintiff, or that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, and also alleged that he was the owner of said laud. The magistrate dismissed the proceeding and there was an appeal to the Superior Court.\nPlaintiff testified that he rented the property to the defendant for the year 1932, and that his term expired on 31 December of that year, and that the defendant held over, etc. Plaintiff further testified that the land was the home place of the defendant.\nOn cross-examination counsel for defendant proposed to ask the plaintiff if he did not have a mortgage on the defendant\u2019s home. TJpon objection the question was eliminated by the trial judge. The witness would have answered that he had a deed of trust on the property given in 1928. The answer was likewise stricken out. In the absence of a jury, plaintiff testified that he had a deed of trust upon the home place of defendant, which is the land in controversy, and that same was foreclosed and purchased by him, and that he had thereafter rented to the defendant.\nUpon the return of the jury the foregoing testimony was offered in evidence, but upon objection by the plaintiff was excluded.\nThe defendant testified that the land in controversy was his home place, where he had always lived, and that he did not rent the place from the defendant.\nThe foregoing was the substance of all the testimony offered at the trial by both parties.\nThe following issues were submitted to the jury:\n1. \u201cDid the plaintiff lease or rent to the defendant for the year 1932 the lands described in the plaintiff\u2019s affidavit?\u201d\n2. \u201cIs the plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of said lands?\u201d\n3. \u201cWhat amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant ?\u201d\nThe jury answered the first issue \u201cYes,\u201d the third issue \u201c$12.50,\u201d and omitted to answer the second issue.\nFrom judgment for possession against the defendant he appealed.\nW. L. McGoy for plaintiff.\nGeo. B. Patton and R. D. Sisk for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0822-02",
  "first_page_order": 888,
  "last_page_order": 890
}