{
  "id": 8627031,
  "name": "MRS. R. A. HALL v. WILLIE G. BOYKIN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Boykin",
  "decision_date": "1937-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "391",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 391"
    }
  ],
  "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": "28 S. E., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S. E., 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 776",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655090
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0776-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1923,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531479634526955
    },
    "sha256": "d082808c845bcb64587cb914ffddcc5050ea5a543a9a4077f084d7f9627c4fc9",
    "simhash": "1:741097273a64229b",
    "word_count": 327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. R. A. HALL v. WILLIE G. BOYKIN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oubiam.\nThe exception to the directed verdict is well taken. Plaintiff offered no evidence under the court\u2019s ruling, which was erroneous, and the verdict is unsupported by the record. Hayes v. Green, 187 N. C., 776, 123 S. E., 7; Bank v. School Committee, 121 N. C., 107, 28 S. E., 134.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abell & Shepard for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Parktr & Lee for defendant Boyette, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. R. A. HALL v. WILLIE G. BOYKIN et al.\n(Filed 17 March, 1937.)\nBills and Notes \u00a7 27 \u2014 Plaintiff must show ownership of note sued on, and directed verdict for her without introduction of evidence by her is error.\nIn an action on a note and to foreclose mortgage security plaintiff alleged that she was the owner of the note executed by one defendant to the other. The payee named in the note denied the allegation of ownership, and, upon the court\u2019s erroneous ruling that the burden was on him, proffered evidence, which was excluded, that he was the owner of the note. The court thereupon directed a verdict for plaintiff without the introduction of evidence by her. Seld: Defendant\u2019s exception to the directed verdict is well taken.\nAppeal by defendant J. W. Boyett from Cranmer, J., at September Term, 1936, of JohNstoN.\nCivil action to recover on promissory note and to foreclose mortgage security.\nPlaintiff alleges tbat sbe is tbe owner and bolder of a note for $552.50, executed by \"Willie G. Boykin to J. W. Boyette on 1 December, 1929, payable 1 January, 1931, and secured by mortgage, wbicb allegation is denied in tbe answer of J. W. Boyette.\nWben tbe pleadings were read, tbe court ruled tbat tbe burden of proof was on tbe defendant; whereupon, tbe defendant Boyette proffered testimony to tbe effect tbat be was tbe owner of tbe \u201cBoykin note and mortgage described in tbe pleadings,\u201d wbicb was excluded. Exception.\nErom a directed verdict and judgment for plaintiff, tbe defendant Boyette appeals, assigning errors.\nAbell & Shepard for plaintiff, appellee.\nParktr & Lee for defendant Boyette, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 457
}