{
  "id": 8631252,
  "name": "J. P. MICHAEL v. W. F. BROWN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Michael v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1939-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "657",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 655"
    }
  ],
  "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": "55 S. E., 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0257-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 321,
    "char_count": 5425,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073439416738196
    },
    "sha256": "441fddb59f2e7f3ca3e14318ab16402c182d520e2c4d3b5f6f178389ae113d47",
    "simhash": "1:6873159b73e65c97",
    "word_count": 950
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. P. MICHAEL v. W. F. BROWN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe testimony of plaintiff\u2019s nephew and agent, Conrad Michael, who negotiated the sale, is in full support of the judgment of nonsuit. The record discloses that plaintiff has been paid for all timber cut by the defendants. The timber was sold according to the boundaries pointed out by plaintiff\u2019s agent. The uncut portion of the timber was later repurchased according to the same boundaries. \u201cThat is the way it was put in the contract,\u201d says Conrad Michael, and \u201cthe land uncle is now calling the \u2018Leonard land\u2019 is included in that tract.\u201d Plaintiff admits, \u201cthere is nothing in the contract to show just where the timber is located.\u201d An aider under tbe doctrine of id certum, est, etc., is required for its exact location. R. R. v. Olive, 142 N. C., 257, 55 S. E., 263.\nAs we- understand tbe record and interpret it, tbe plaintiff bas no just cause for complaint. Tbe timber cut was tbe timber wbicb tbe plaintiff sold and tbe defendants bought. Tbe nonsuit will be sustained.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Eugene Snyder and McCrary & DeLapp for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Martin & Brinldey for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. P. MICHAEL v. W. F. BROWN et al.\n(Filed 24 May, 1939.)\nDeeds \u00a7 24 \u2014 Evidence held insufficient to show that grantee cut timber from lands of grantor not embraced in the timber deed.\nThis action was instituted by the grantor in a timber deed to recover for timber which he alleged had been cut from other of his lands not embraced in the timber deed. Plaintiff admitted that he had been paid for all timber cut from the land embraced in the deed. The description of the land in the timber deed required reference to other instruments as an aider to make certain the land therein described. Plaintiff\u2019s agent, who negotiated the sale of the timber, testified that he went upon the land with the grantee and pointed out the boundary, and that neither the grantee nor his assignee had cut any timber from land not embraced therein. Held: Defendant\u2019s motion of nonsuit was properly granted.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Olive, Special Judge, at October Term, 1938, of DavidsoN.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged trespass in wrongfully cutting timber on plaintiff\u2019s land.\nOn 25 September, 1934, the plaintiff, by deed duly executed, sold to J. L. Bullard, for a consideration of $3,050.00, \u201call the sawable timber on the following described lands, owned by party of the first part, situate in Tyro Township (Davidson County), adjoining the lands of Byerly and Jordan, J. A. Myers\u2019 heirs, Gid Sink and others, known as the Betsy Sowers land and containing about one hundred (100) acres, more or less.\u201d\nOn 23 August, 1935, J. L. Bullard assigned and conveyed all his right, title and interest in said timber to the Piedmont Lumber Company.\nThereafter, on 20 November, 1935, the plaintiff, for a consideration of $550.00, repurchased from the Piedmont Lumber Company all the uncut timber then on the land and covered by the original timber deed.\nIt is alleged that the defendants, during the time they were cutting and removing the timber conveyed in this deed, overstepped the boundaries of the \u201cBetsy Sowers\u201d tract and cut a quantity of timber on an adjoining tract of 36 acres, belonging to the plaintiff, and known as the \u201cLeonard land.\u201d\nThere was evidence tending to show that the defendants cut timber on the tract designated by the plaintiff as the \u201cLeonard land,\u201d but they contend that it was embraced within the boundaries of their deed.\nTbe plaintiff admitted that he had been paid for all the timber covered by the contract, and further testified: \u201cThere is nothing in the contract to show just where the timber is located.\u201d\nConrad Michael, witness for plaintiff, testified in part, as follows: \u201cI am a nephew of the plaintiff. . . . My uncle owned various tracts of land in the neighborhood \u2014 one known as the Sowers place. . . . The property involved in this case is known in that section as the Sowers place. . . . My uncle described the land that he wanted me to sell the timber on. (Witness draws sketch on board to illustrate). My uncle says there was about 100 acres in those boundaries. . . . The 100 acres described in the deed known as the Betsy Sowers (place) is the land inside the marks drawn by me. The land he is now calling the \u2018Leonard land\u2019 is included in that tract. . . . The tract was known and called the Sowers place. That is the way it was put in the contract. . . . After uncle asked me to sell it, and I found a buyer in Bullard, I went out there with Bullard. I showed him the boundaries that I am now showing the court and jury. I sold him the timber on the 100 acres in these boundaries for $3,050.00 as agent for my uncle. ... I didn\u2019t see any trees cut outside of the boundaries. . . . I went out there about the time my uncle bought the timber back. There had been no timber cut outside of the lines that I have just described that I know of. . . . The drawing I have made on the board, as I understand it, is the land uncle asked me to sell the timber on as his agent. There was no timber cut outside of these boundaries to my knowing, and I was out there after they quit cutting.\u201d\nW. F. Brown was named as a defendant because the plaintiff did not know whether the timber in question was cut by him individually or by the corporate defendant of which he is president.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals, assigning error.\nJ. Eugene Snyder and McCrary & DeLapp for plaintiff, appellant.\nMartin & Brinldey for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 721,
  "last_page_order": 723
}