{
  "id": 8621770,
  "name": "CITY OF GASTONIA v. JOHN DAVID GLENN",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Gastonia v. Glenn",
  "decision_date": "1940-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "510",
  "last_page": "511",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 510"
    }
  ],
  "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": "217 N. C., 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611321
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S. E., 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652601
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N. C., 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606702
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0334-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3136,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.301975463873219e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47965479840716585
    },
    "sha256": "9756c442ac9f020ed45dd635307d7282f30bbb7ffbb0c522718613b5bea0f372",
    "simhash": "1:bb4f8ee64100bfd3",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF GASTONIA v. JOHN DAVID GLENN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt is provided by O. S., 1716, that in condemnation, the petition, when filed by the condemnor, \u201cmust contain a description of the real estate which the corporation seeks to acquire.\u201d This we apprehend means a description of the property sought to be acquired and not merely a description of the entire tract over which the right of way, privilege, or easement is to run. Tbe right o\u00a3 way is to be located before it can be taken. It must be fixed and not fugitive. See Johnston County v. Stewart, 217 N. C., 334, 7 S. E. (2d), 708. In other words, to paraphrase a certain parody, \u201cthe recipe for taking property in condemnation begins by saying \u2018first locate the property.\u2019 \u201d Such is the statutory requirement in condemning a right of way for a railroad. C. S., 3471; S. v. Wells, 142 N. C., 590, 55 S. E., 210.\n' In the present state of the record, we are constrained to reverse the ruling on the demurrer for insufficient description of the property sought to be condemned, with the observation that petitioner may apply to the court below, under C. S., 515, for leave to amend the petition, if so advised. This might have been done in the first instance under 3 C. S., 513. Petty v. Lemons, 217 N. C., 492.\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ernest R. Warren for petitioner, appellee.",
      "J. L. Hamme for respondent, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY OF GASTONIA v. JOHN DAVID GLENN.\n(Filed 20 November, 1940.)\n1. Eminent Domain \u00a7 14\u2014\nThis proceeding was instituted by a municipality to condemn an easement over respondent\u2019s land for a sewer line, O. S., 2791, 2792, 1705, et seq. The petition described defendant\u2019s tract of land over which the easement was sought but did not describe the property sought to be condemned. Meld,: Defendant\u2019s demurrer to the petition for insufficiency of the description should have been sustained. C. S., 1716.\n2. Pleading \u00a7 23\u2014\nWhere it is determined on appeal that respondent\u2019s demurrer to the petition in condemnation proceedings should have been sustained, petitioner may apply to the court below for leave to amend the petition if so advised. O. S., 515.\nAppeal by respondent from Clement, J., at July Term, 1940, of GaSTON.\nSpecial proceeding under C. S., 2791-2792 and 1705, et seq., to condemn right of way, privilege, or easement, over respondent\u2019s land for extension of municipal sewer line.\nIt is set out in the petition that the city of Gastonia, in order to meet the necessity of extending its sewerage system, \u201chas constructed and is constructing a sewer pipe line across the lands of the defendant . . . described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the Gastonia-Dallas Highway . . . containing 25% acres\u201d; that petitioner and respondent have failed to agree upon the compensation that should be paid for \u25a0 such right of way because of the excessive demand of the respondent, and that respondent has denied to petitioner the right to construct the line across his lands.\nDemurrer interposed on the ground that the petition contains no description of the property sought to be condemned and fails to show the location of the line by map, profile, or otherwise.\nDemurrer overruled, and respondent appeals.\nErnest R. Warren for petitioner, appellee.\nJ. L. Hamme for respondent, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0510-01",
  "first_page_order": 578,
  "last_page_order": 579
}