{
  "id": 8574070,
  "name": "MADGE BARLOWE ROBERTS and husband, W. M. ROBERTS v. FRANK W. BARLOWE and wife, JERRY BARLOWE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Barlowe",
  "decision_date": "1963-09-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 239"
    }
  ],
  "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": "42 N.C. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8680797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/42/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626212
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0429-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3374,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.296659732422348e-07,
      "percentile": 0.786903792460487
    },
    "sha256": "c0135874f557a9ebdedbc8eefe332aa9d73e57786a1a3185e56843fc3ec98a70",
    "simhash": "1:77cb495c70ee4ad4",
    "word_count": 577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MADGE BARLOWE ROBERTS and husband, W. M. ROBERTS v. FRANK W. BARLOWE and wife, JERRY BARLOWE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cubiam.\nProceedings for partition are equitable in nature, and in a suit for partition a court of equity has power to adjust all equities between the parties with respect to the property to be partitioned. A sale for partition may be ordered and the rights of the parties adjusted from the proceeds of the sale. Henson v. Henson, 236 N.C. 429, 72 S.E. 2d 873. See also 14 Am. Jur., Cotenancy, ss. 43-46, pp. 109-113; 68 C.J.S., Partition, a 136, pp. 212, 213.\nSince the court below made no order affecting the distribution o-f the proceeds of the sale, the judgment directing a sale of the lands and appointing a commissioner will not be held erroneous. But the male defendant, having asserted his claims before an order of distribution was made, is entitled as a matter of right to have his claims determined before an order of distribution of the proceeds of the sale is entered. Lewis, Ex Parte, 42 N.C. 4.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hollowell & Stott for plaintiffs.",
      "Mullen, Holland \u25a0& Cooke for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MADGE BARLOWE ROBERTS and husband, W. M. ROBERTS v. FRANK W. BARLOWE and wife, JERRY BARLOWE\n(Filed 25 September 1963.)\n1. Partition \u00a7 1\u2014\n\u25a0Proceedings for partition are equitable in nature, and in a suit for partition a court of equity bas power to adjust all equities between tbe parties with respect to the property.\n2. Partition \u00a7 8\u2014\nWhere respondent admits petitioner\u2019s allegation of tenancy in common land that the land should be sold for partition, but asserts claims against petitioner for payments by respondent of obligations of petitioner and liens against the land, judgment on the pleadings decreeing sale is proper, but respondent is entitled as a matter of right to have his claims determined before an order for distribution of the proceeds of the sale is entered.\nAppeal by defendants from Riddle, S.J., June 3, 1963, Civil Session of Gaston..\nSpecial proceeding for sale of lands for partition.\nThe petition alleges and the answer admits that feme plaintiff and male defendant were formerly wife and husband and owned the lands described in the petition as tenants by the entirety, they were divorced in 1956 and are now tenants in common, and said lands should be sold for partition.\nThe answer alleges that male defendant is entitled to reimbursement from feme plaintiff\u2019s share of the proceeds of the sale (1) $2000 for unauthorized purchases by her prior to the divorce on his credit, which sum he has paid and which she is obligated to repay, and (2) a $4000 debt, which was secured by a deed of trust and which was a lien on said lands at the time of the divorce, he -having since paid this obligation. The answer further alleges that there is an unpaid indebtedness of $2000, secured by a deed of trust on said lands executed by the plaintiffs and defendants, that the indebtedness was incurred entirely for the benefit of feme plaintiff and should be paid and discharged from her share of the proceeds of the sale for partition.\nPlaintiffs deny any obligation to pay the items referred to in the answer, and deny that they are chargeable to feme plaintiff\u2019s share.\nAt the trial plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings. Without determining by jury trial or otherwise the validity or invalidity of male defendant\u2019s claims, the court entered judgment ordering a sale of the lands and appointing a commissioner to make the sale. Defendants appeal.\nHollowell & Stott for plaintiffs.\nMullen, Holland \u25a0& Cooke for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 279,
  "last_page_order": 280
}