{
  "id": 8629458,
  "name": "A. E. McLESTER and Wife, WRISSIE McLESTER, and MRS. BETTY A. ALMOND, v. CHARLIE SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "McLester v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1936-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "826",
  "last_page": "826",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 826"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1417,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "8a7b1cc5d848aef6c5702c4c59540620b414a0e355836b03f4837d62279ea606",
    "simhash": "1:9aaeda1cac9611f5",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. E. McLESTER and Wife, WRISSIE McLESTER, and MRS. BETTY A. ALMOND, v. CHARLIE SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant excepted to the allowance of an amendment to the complaint and to the rulings of the court as to matters of evidence, and also to certain portions of the judge\u2019s charge. However, upon examination we find that none of these exceptions can be sustained. The case seems to have been properly submitted to the jury upon the issues raised by the pleadings. No new questions of law are presented.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown & Brown for plaintiffs.",
      "B. L. Smith & Son for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. E. McLESTER and Wife, WRISSIE McLESTER, and MRS. BETTY A. ALMOND, v. CHARLIE SMITH.\n(Filed 20 May, 1936.)\nAppeal by defendant from Finley-, J., at September Term, 1935, of StaNLY.\nNo error.\nTbe litigated question bere was as to tbe title to a small strip of land, about one-fourtb of an acre. Tbe controversy arose by reason of a change in tbe channel of a creek which divided tbe lands of tbe plaintiffs from those of the defendant. By tbe deeds of both parties tbe adjoining lands were conveyed to tbe center of tbe stream. Plaintiffs allege that subsequent to tbe conveyances a sudden diversion of tbe waters of tbe creek was caused by tbe action of tbe highway force and by this defendant, resulting in tbe cutting off of a small portion of their land. This was denied by tbe defendant.\nUpon issues submitted, verdict was rendered by tbe jury in favor of tbe plaintiffs. From judgment on tbe verdict defendant appealed.\nBrown & Brown for plaintiffs.\nB. L. Smith & Son for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0826-01",
  "first_page_order": 892,
  "last_page_order": 892
}