{
  "id": 8618053,
  "name": "WINNIE WOOD WALSTON et al. v. SUSAN MORGAN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walston v. Morgan",
  "decision_date": "1940-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "790",
  "last_page": "791",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 790"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 S. E., 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0006-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20719316068234095
    },
    "sha256": "4166feec4e289923d14fb791b1a01f7504fb10d3f48be0109390b37e00a2735e",
    "simhash": "1:b7475de860b32a84",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WINNIE WOOD WALSTON et al. v. SUSAN MORGAN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe judge of tbe Superior Court concluded tbat a sale of tbe entire tract was necessary and proper on tbe facts found and set out in tbe record. What bas occasioned tbe appeal is tbe further statement in tbe judgment tbat tbe court was without right, as a matter of law, to order actual partition in part and sale in part. This, however, is predicated \u201cupon tbe foregoing\u201d and tbe court\u2019s opinion based thereon tbat a sale of tbe whole tract was \u201cproper and necessary.\u201d As thus understood, it would seem tbat only a discretionary order is presented for review. Taylor v. Carrow, 156 N. C., 6, 72 S. E., 76.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. Clarence Dozier for plaintiffs and certain respondents, appellants.",
      "McMullan & McMullan for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WINNIE WOOD WALSTON et al. v. SUSAN MORGAN et al.\n(Filed 28 February, 1940.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Nimochs, J., at November Term, 1939, of PASQUOTANK.\nPetition for partition.\nPetitioners and respondents are owners of a tract of land in Pasquo-tank County containing approximately 78 acres. Those owning % in interest prayed for actual partition of 56 acres and a sale of the remaining 22 acres. The owners of % in interest alleged that partial partition under C. S., 3227, could not be had without substantial loss and prayed for a sale of the whole tract.\nUpon facts found by the court favorable to the view of those holding the minority interest the entire tract was ordered to be sold for partition, it being recited in the judgment that \u201cupon the foregoing, the court being of the opinion that a sale of said lands is proper and necessary, and that, as a matter of law, the court is without right to order a parti-tition according to either of the modes or methods proposed and requested by the petitioners.\u201d From this order the petitioners appeal.\nR. Clarence Dozier for plaintiffs and certain respondents, appellants.\nMcMullan & McMullan for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0790-01",
  "first_page_order": 856,
  "last_page_order": 857
}