{
  "id": 8623876,
  "name": "D. A. BYRD and Wife, VERA W. BYRD, v. M. B. THOMPSON, SR., and Wife, DELACY THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byrd v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1955-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 271"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 S.E. 2d 133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 S.E. 887",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271382
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.E. 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0577-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4642,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7076074679005702e-07,
      "percentile": 0.701915053734793
    },
    "sha256": "b3445111be72f035d44f84799703ce91f7f8c929c95704907123c998d98d167c",
    "simhash": "1:1fb29088fabc57af",
    "word_count": 760
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. A. BYRD and Wife, VERA W. BYRD, v. M. B. THOMPSON, SR., and Wife, DELACY THOMPSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nDefendants\u2019 brief contains no argument and cites no authority relating to an error of law. It relates solely to their contention that the division made by the commissioners was unequal, adverse to them.\nWhether the division was unequal or fair and equitable, was a question of fact determinable by Judge Gwyn. McMillan v. McMillan, 123 N.C. 577, 31 S.E. 729; Fisher v. Toxaway Co., 171 N.C. 547, 88 S.E. 887.\nThere are no exceptions to the findings of fact. Defendants\u2019 sole exceptive assignment of error is to the signing of the judgment. Thus, the only question presented is whether the facts found support the judgment. Scarboro v. Insurance Co., 242 N.C. 444, 88 S.E. 2d 133. But aside from defendants\u2019 failure to present for decision the only question they now argue, it appears there was evidence before Judge Gwyn amply sufficient to support his findings; and the findings made fully support the judgment.\nThe respective values of tract #1 ($2,850.00) and tract #2 ($3,000.00) having been established, in order to equalize, the owelty charged against tract #2 should be $75.00 rather than $150.00. This being an obvious \u2022error in calculation, the commissioners\u2019 report and the orders confirming such report should be modified so as to make this correction. It is so ordered.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. Emerson Scarborough -for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "W. D. Barrett for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. A. BYRD and Wife, VERA W. BYRD, v. M. B. THOMPSON, SR., and Wife, DELACY THOMPSON.\n(Filed 14 December, 1955.)\n1. Partition \u00a7 4g (3)\u2014\nWhere actual partition has been ordered, whether the tracts as divided by the commissioners are unequal in value or fair and equitable is a question of fact determinable by the Superior Court on appeal, and its order confirming the report will not be disturbed when the judgment is supported by the findings and the findings are supported by the evidence.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 6c (2) \u2014\nA sole exception to the signing of the judgment presents only whether the facts found support the judgment.\n3. Partition \u00a7 4g (1)\u2014\nWhere, in the actual division of land between two tenants in common, there is a difference in the value of the two tracts, the person to whom is allotted the more valuable tract should pay to the other only one-half the difference in the value.\nAppeal by defendants from Gwyn, J., Resident Judge of the 17th Judicial District, heard 24 September, 1955, in Chambers in Reidsville, N. C., from Caswell.\nPartition proceedings relating to a tract of land in Caswell County, containing 131.62 acres, owned in fee simple, each having an undivided one-half interest, by plaintiff D. A. Byrd and by defendant M. B. Thompson, Sr. In their respective pleadings, plaintiffs petitioned that the land be sold but defendants insisted that actual partition be made. In proceedings not relevant to this appeal, the question of fact thus raised was resolved in favor of defendants.\nPursuant to proper orders, the land was surveyed and divided by commissioners into two tracts. The commissioners allotted tract #1, containing 56.15 acres, valued at $2,850.00, to defendants, and allotted tract #2, containing 75.47 acres, valued at $3,000.00, to plaintiffs. To equalize, tract #2 was charged with $150.00, to be paid by plaintiffs to defendants.\nDefendants excepted to the commissioners\u2019 report. Upon hearing, the clerk overruled defendants\u2019 exceptions and approved the commissioners\u2019 report, finding specific facts as to the character of the land and that the division made by the commissioners was \u201cfair, just and equitable.\u201d Defendants excepted to the clerk\u2019s order and appealed. Upon appeal, in a hearing before Judge Gwyn, plaintiffs and defendants offered conflicting evidence as to the value of tract #1 and of tract #2.\nJudge Gwyn\u2019s order, from which this appeal is taken, in part, provides : \u201cAfter hearing the evidence offered by all parties, after considering the plats, the division made, the locations and values of both tracts, and the report of the Commissioners, the Court finds that the facts as set forth in the order of the Clerk of the Court, dated September 10, 1955, in this cause are true and correct, and is of the opinion that a just, fair and reasonable division of the lands has been made between the plaintiff and the defendant and should be upheld and confirmed.\u201d Further provisions of Judge Gwyn\u2019s order overrule defendants\u2019 exceptions and approve and confirm both the commissioners\u2019 report and the clerk\u2019s order.\nDefendants excepted \u201cto the foregoing order and the signing thereof\u201d and appealed. Defendants\u2019 assignments of error are based solely on this exception.\nD. Emerson Scarborough -for plaintiffs, appellees.\nW. D. Barrett for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 311,
  "last_page_order": 312
}