{
  "id": 2221527,
  "name": "JOHN ARTHUR GASKINS v. GROVER C. LANCASTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gaskins v. Lancaster",
  "decision_date": "1936-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "154 S. E., 746",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604821
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0178-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07757826807663304
    },
    "sha256": "c588f7b39957618cd3620865673de5b4068d7eb726255e4a50ac421a2d2d6370",
    "simhash": "1:ce36b792d620595f",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN ARTHUR GASKINS v. GROVER C. LANCASTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\nafter stating the case: Was it error, upon a volte face by defendant, to refuse to undo in May what was done at his instance in February? The defendant invokes the sanction applied in Thompson v. Funeral Home, 208 N. C., 178, 179 S. E., 801. Plaintiff relies upon the doctrine announced in Rand v. Gillette, 199 N. C., 462, 154 S. E., 746. The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.\nAppeal dismissed.\nDevin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. L. Ward and Dunn & Dunn for plaintiff.",
      "Barden & Stith and B. E. Whitehurst for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN ARTHUR GASKINS v. GROVER C. LANCASTER.\n(Filed 22 January, 1936.)\nAppeal and Error J a \u2014 Refusal to vacate judgment at instance of successful party alleging misinformation at time of trial, held not reviewahle.\nIn proceedings to establish the boundary line between the parties, judgment was entered in accordance with defendant\u2019s contentions, and the court surveyor ordered to run the line in accordance therewith. Upon the coming in of the surveyor\u2019s report, defendant moved to set aside the judgment and resisted confirmation of the surveyor\u2019s report on the ground that he had been misinformed by the surveyor at the time of the trial as to where the line would run. Held: The motion was addressed to the discretion of the court, and its ruling thereon is not reviewable.\nDevin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Barnhill, J., at May Term, 1935, of Craven.\nSpecial proceeding to establish dividing line between the lands of plaintiff and defendant, adjoining landowners. \u2022\nThe matter was heard at the February Term, 1935, on appeal from the clerk, and resulted in a verdict establishing the beginning point of the dividing line between the lands of plaintiff and defendant at \u201cC,\u201d as shown upon the map. This was in accordance with defendant\u2019s contention. The court surveyor was thereupon directed to establish the line, beginning at said point, and following the calls in plaintiff\u2019s deed. The description in defendant\u2019s deed called for plaintiff\u2019s line.\nOn the coming in of the surveyor\u2019s report, the defendant resisted confirmation of said report and moved to set aside the judgment entered on the verdict at the February Term because, he says, the surveyor misinformed him at the time of trial as to where the line would run, starting at the point \u201c0\u201d on the map. It does not appear from the record what representations were made by the surveyor to defendant and his counsel at the time of trial. Apparently they were not made in open court.\nThe court declined the defendant\u2019s motion, and entered judgment of confirmation at the May Term, 1935, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nD. L. Ward and Dunn & Dunn for plaintiff.\nBarden & Stith and B. E. Whitehurst for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 364
}