{
  "id": 8606991,
  "name": "REX LEWIS v. J. R. PATE and Wife, KITTIE PATE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. Pate",
  "decision_date": "1937-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "253",
  "last_page": "254",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 253"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N. C., 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217697
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0372-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N. C., 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653506
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0200-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2411,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2758051423423827e-07,
      "percentile": 0.784258078366731
    },
    "sha256": "ad3473c10f9e945bd2c8e644b28378482fb6e953a3e7ec971236a467236604ce",
    "simhash": "1:819610a47ce6e2e0",
    "word_count": 414
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "REX LEWIS v. J. R. PATE and Wife, KITTIE PATE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nWhile there are a number of exceptions in the record, the appellant presents to this Court for determination only one question, to wit: \u201cDoes the husband own and have the right to dispose of all the income, rents and profits, products, etc., accruing from an estate held by entirety to such an extent that an execution against him may be levied upon it to the exclusion of any interest the wife may have ?\u201d This question must be answered, in the affirmative. It is well established law in this State that the husband, during coverture and as between himself and the wife, has absolute and exclusive right to the control, use, possession, rents, issues, and profits of property held as tenants by the entirety. The common-law rule still prevails. Davis v. Bass, 188 N. C., 200; Bynum v. Wicker, 141 N. C., 95; Greenville v. Gornto, 161 N. C., 342; Dorsey v. Kirkland, 177 N. C., 523; Simonton v. Cornelius, 98 N. C., 437; Bryant v. Bryant, 193 N. C., 372; 30 C. J., 567.\nWe have examined the other exceptions contained in the record and find them without substantial merit. In the trial of this cause below there was\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watson, Fouts & Watson for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Charles Hutchins for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "REX LEWIS v. J. R. PATE and Wife, KITTIE PATE.\n(Filed 13 October, 1937.)\nHusband and Wife \u00a7 12: Execution \u00a7 12\u2014\nA husband owns and has the right to dispose of all the income, rents and profits, products, etc., accruing from an estate held by entirety so that execution against him may be levied thereon to the exclusion of any claim of the wife.\nExceptions to report of appraisers allotting personal property exemptions, heard before Alley, J., at June Special Term, 1937, of Yancey. N o error.\nThe plaintiff having procured a judgment in this cause against the defendant J. R. Pate, an execution issued thereon, under which the sheriff proceeded to have the defendant\u2019s personal property exemptions allotted. In the allotment of exemptions crops raised on lands owned by the defendant and his wife as tenants by the entirety were set apart to the defendants, as a part of his personal property exemption, and certain parts of the crops were ordered sold under the execution.\nIn the trial below, upon issues submitted, the jury found, under instructions of the court, that the crops levied upon belonged to the defendant J. R. Pate. From judgment thereon the defendants appealed.\nWatson, Fouts & Watson for plaintiff, appellee.\nCharles Hutchins for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0253-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 324
}