{
  "id": 8627959,
  "name": "E. A. GOINS v. RONALD McLOUD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goins v. McLoud",
  "decision_date": "1948-03-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "656",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 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": "222 N. C., 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627864
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S. E., 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629511
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S. E., 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 656",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0656-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N. C., 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617532
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2426,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072904636525141
    },
    "sha256": "067ef64fa64de32f1e1d967d7f715f26a84182290f9b5da407efdbeddd6610c0",
    "simhash": "1:945851b3814d3afd",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. A. GOINS v. RONALD McLOUD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BarNhilu, J.\nThe magistrate before whom this action was instituted had jurisdiction only in the event the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between plaintiff and defendant. Gr. S. 42-26; Howell v. Branson, 226 N. C., 264, 37 S. E. (2d), 687. On appeal the jurisdiction of the Superior Court was derivative and trial there was limited to the issues properly raised in the court of origin. Wells v. West, 212 N. C., 656, 194 S. E., 313; Allen v. Insurance Co., 213 N. C., 586, 197 S. E., 200; Cheek v. Insurance Co., 215 N. C., 36, 1 S. E. (2d), 115; Leonard v. Coble, 222 N. C., 552, 23 S. E. (2d), 841; Howell v. Branson, supra. In brief these were: (1) Was there a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant; and if so, (2) did defendant hold over or continue in possession after the expiration of his term?\nThat defendant entered into possession of the premises as tenant of plaintiff was denied. The evidence in respect thereto was in sharp conflict. The jury has resolved the question in favor of defendant, in a trial free from error.\nPlaintiff argues that defendant is at least a tenant at sufferance or at will. If so, his remedy is not by summary ejectment, and the issue was not triable in this cause.\nIn the trial below we find\n.No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BarNhilu, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. II. Strickland for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Max C. Wilson\u25a0 for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. A. GOINS v. RONALD McLOUD.\n(Filed 24 March, 1948.)\n1. Ejectment \u00a7 2\u2014\nA magistrate has jurisdiction of proceedings in summary ejectment only if there is a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant and if defendant holds over after the expiration of the term, and the remedy does not extend to a tenant at sufferance or at will. G. S., 42-26.\n2. Ejectment \u00a7 9\u2014\nThe jurisdiction of the Superior Court on appeals in summary ejectment is derivative, and where the jury, upon conflicting evidence, in a trial free from error, finds that defendant did not enter into possession as tenant of plaintiff, judgment for defendant is not error.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Paitan, Special Judge, September-October Term, 1947, Oaldweli,.\nNo error.\nProceeding in summary ejectment instituted in a magistrate\u2019s court and heard on appeal in the court below.\nThe -jury for their verdict found that defendant did not enter upon and occupy the premises as tenant of plaintiff. The court thereupon entered judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.\nW. II. Strickland for plaintiff appellant.\nMax C. Wilson\u25a0 for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 701,
  "last_page_order": 702
}