{
  "id": 8559637,
  "name": "BULAH RICE and wife, ELIZABETH RICE v. EDNEY RICE and wife, FUSHIA RICE, and MARGARET RICE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rice v. Rice",
  "decision_date": "1963-03-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 171"
    }
  ],
  "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": "77 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 498",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632343
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0746-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 74",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 633",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612651
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601922
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2189,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32364164860576816
    },
    "sha256": "25644366d943806b449c117261bcce53d580aa5647d725237cbffd5bece6e92a",
    "simhash": "1:e735d47f35f05dd3",
    "word_count": 375
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BULAH RICE and wife, ELIZABETH RICE v. EDNEY RICE and wife, FUSHIA RICE, and MARGARET RICE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellants undertake to set out five assignments of error based on a like number of exceptions. However, the exceptions appear nowhere in the record except under the purported assignments of error. Such exceptions are feckless and will not be considered on appeal. Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118.\nFurthermore, if exceptions to the failure of the court to nonsuit the plaintiffs at the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, had been properly entered and assigned, they would have been without merit.\nThis Court has repeatedly held that when it is made to appear that there is a bona fide dispute between landowners as to the true location of the boundary line between adjoining tracts of land, the cause may not be dismissed as in case of nonsuit. Cornelison v. Hammond, 225 N.C. 535, 35 S.E. 2d 633; Plemmons v. Cutshall, 230 N.C. 595, 55 S.E. 2d 74; Brown v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 746, 55 S.E. 2d 498; Welborn v. Lumber Co., 238 N.C. 238, 77 S.E. 2d 612.\nIn the trial 'below, we find\nNo error",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. E. Leake for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Clyde M. Roberts for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BULAH RICE and wife, ELIZABETH RICE v. EDNEY RICE and wife, FUSHIA RICE, and MARGARET RICE.\n(Filed 27 March 1963.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nExceptions which appear nowhere in the record except tinder the purported assignments of error are ineffectual.\n2. Boundaries \u00a7 7\u2014\nWhere there is a dona fide dispute as to the boundary between the lands of plaintiffs and the lands of defendants, nonsuit is inapposite.\nAppeal by defendants from Campbell, J., Regular October Term 1962 of Madison.\nThis is a processioning proceeding instituted for the purpose of establishing the true boundary line between the adjoining lands of the plaintiffs and the defendants.\nThe plaintiffs and the defendants introduced voluminous evidence.\nThe jury found the true and correct boundary line between the lands of plaintiffs and the lands of defendants to be the line from A to B as shown on the official court map, prepared by James W. Moore, Registered Land Surveyor, and dated 27 October 1962.\nJudgment was entered on the verdict. The defendants appeal, assigning error.\nA. E. Leake for plaintiff appellees.\nClyde M. Roberts for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}