{ "id": 8560017, "name": "STATE v. J. N. McBANE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McBane", "decision_date": "1969-12-10", "docket_number": "No. 23", "first_page": "60", "last_page": "68", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "276 N.C. 60" } ], "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": "91 S.E. 2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625857 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "858" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623126 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Iowa L. Rev. 367", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Iowa L. Rev.", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "423" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559295 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 728", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0728-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560657 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 700", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631167 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "702" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0700-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219595 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608795 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "783" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621471 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "885" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621264 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626903 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620799 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575235 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560264 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0105-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 726, "char_count": 19556, "ocr_confidence": 0.595, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.821001525673686e-07, "percentile": 0.9318058697630635 }, "sha256": "fa083ff37c8403907fe89d58bf8623680ef194477f2a058ca9c8e1fe0760167c", "simhash": "1:8d7a666905aa21d1", "word_count": 3127 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:31.974326+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Moore, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. J. N. McBANE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, C.J.\nThis appeal by the State is specifically authorized by G.S. 15-179(3) and (6). State v. Vaughan, 268 N.C. 105, 150 S.E. 2d 31.\nThe provisions of Chapter 1007, Session Laws of 1959, captioned \u201cAN ACT AUTHORIZING COUNTIES TO REGULATE THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN AREAS OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION - REGULATION JURISDICTION,\u201d now comprise Article 20A, Chapter 153, of the General Statutes (Vol. 3C, Replacement 1964). Article 20A consists of G.S. 153-266.1 through G.S. 153-266.9.\nThe warrant purports to charge a violation of G.S. 153-266.6, which provides: \u201cIf a board of county commissioners adopts an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land as authorized herein, any person who, being the owner or agent of the owner of any land located within the platting jurisdiction granted to the county commissioners by G.S. 153-266.1, thereafter transfers or sells such land by reference to a plat showing a subdivision of land before such plat has been properly approved under such ordinance and recorded in the office of the appropriate register of deeds, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The description by metes and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt the transaction from such penalties. The county, through its county attorney or other official designated by the board, o\u00ed county commissioners, may enjoin such illegal transfer or sale by action for injunction.\u201d\nG.S. 153-266.6 purports to create and define a misdemeanor \u201c(i)f a board of county commissioners adopts an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land\u201d as authorized by the provisions of Article 20A, Chapter 153. Hence, as one of the prerequisites to conviction for violation of G.S. 153-266.6, it must be alleged and established that an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land was adopted by the board of county commissioners in accordance with the authority conferred by G.S. 153-266.1 et seq.\nStipulations appearing in the record set forth that the Board of County Commissioners of Guilford County adopted \u201can Ordinance regulating the subdivision of land as authorized in Article 20A, Chapter 153, of the General Statutes,\u201d and that this ordinance had been \u201cin full force and effect since May 17, 1965.\u201d The only provision of the ordinance referred to in the stipulations is Section 23 which simply repeats certain provisions of G.S. 153-266.6.\nWhen a warrant or indictment is challenged by a timely motion to quash on the ground it fails to charge a criminal offense, decision must be based solely on the contents of such warrant or indictment. State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 333, 144 S.E. 2d 14, 16.\nFor present purposes, we assume, but do not decide, that a Guil-ford County Subdivision Ordinance was duly adopted and properly pleaded. Whether it was authorized, in whole or in part, by G.S. 153-266.1 et seq. is not presented. Its provisions do not appear in the record before us.\nG.S. 153-266.1 confers upon a board of county commissioners authority to adopt a subdivision control ordinance. However, this authority may be lawfully exercised only within prescribed limitations. Thus, a subdivision ordinance adopted by the board of county commissioners applies solely to land lying within the county and outside the subdivision-regulation jurisdiction of any municipality. A municipality, under G.S. 160-226, may enact a subdivision ordinance applicable to land lying within the municipality or within one mile in all directions of its corporate limits. However, a municipality may, by resolution, agree to be governed by a county ordinance. A board of county commissioners, if it determines, pursuant to G.S. 153-266.13, that only certain areas of the county need to be governed by zoning regulations, may in its discretion elect to adopt subdivision regulations which apply only to such areas.\nThe sufficiency of the warrant on which this criminal prosecution is based must be tested in the light of well-established legal principles stated below.\n\u201cA valid warrant or indictment is an essential of jurisdiction.\u201d State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 660, 111 S.E. 2d 901, 902. The warrant or indictment must charge all the essential elements of the alleged criminal offense. State v. Morgan, supra. Nothing in G.S. 15-153 or in G.S. 15-155 dispenses with the requirement that the essential elements of the offense must be charged. State v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 261, 66 S.E. 2d 883, 885, and cases cited; State v. Strickland, 243 N.C. 100, 101, 89 S.E. 2d 781, 783.\nA warrant or indictment following substantially the language of the statute is sufficient if and when it thereby charges the essentials of the offense \u201cin a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner.\u201d G.S. 15-153; State v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E. 2d 774. If the statutory words fail to do this they \u201cmust be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.\u201d State v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57, 60, 92 S.E. 2d 413, 415, and cases cited.\nA warrant or indictment \u201c(m)erely charging in general terms a breach of the statute and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.\u201d State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 702, 132 S.E. 795, and cases cited. Subsequent cases in accord with the foregoing include State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E. 2d 638, and State v. Cook, 272 N.C. 728, 158 S.E. 2d 820.\nThe general allegation that defendant\u2019s conduct constituted a misdemeanor in violation of G.S. 153-266.6 is insufficient. The owner or agent of the owner of land within the \u201cplatting jurisdiction\u201d granted the county commissioners by G.S. 153-266.1 is the only person subject to criminal prosecution for violation of G.S. 153-266.6. The warrant alleges that the defendant unlawfully and wilfully transferred or sold \u201ccertain property\u201d described in Deed Book 2331, at page 32, of the Guilford County Registry. Assuming the allegations sufficiently imply that defendant was the owner or agent of the owner of the \u201ccertain property\u201d described in Deed Book 2331, page 32, there is no allegation that this property is located within the \u201cplatting jurisdiction\u201d granted to the county commissioners by G.S. 153-266.1 or that it is located in a portion of Guilford County \u201coutside the subdivision-regulation jurisdiction of any municipality.\u201d In short, the warrant is fatally defective on account of its failure to allege one of the essential elements of the criminal offense created and defined in G.S. 153-266.6, namely, that defendant was the owner or agent of the owner of land within the platting jurisdiction granted to the county commissioners by G.S. 153-266.1. Cf. State v. Furio, 267 N.C. 353, 148 S.E. 2d 275.\nWhile we base decision on the insufficiency of the warrant, it seems appropriate to call attention to the matters discussed below.\nThe general purposes of an authorized county subdivision ordinance are stated in G.S. 153-266.3. Procedural requirements as to notice and hearing prior to the adoption thereof are set forth in G.S. 153-266.2. G.S. 153-266.7 defines \u201cSubdivision,\u201d describing certain divisions as included in and other divisions as excluded from the definition. G.S. 153-266.4 requires that the ordinance contain a provision giving certain specified agencies an opportunity to make recommendations prior to the approval of any individual subdivision plat; and the ordinance may provide that final approval is to be given (1) by the board of county commissioners, or (2) by the board of county commissioners on recommendation of the county planning board, or (3) by the county planning board.\nG.S. 153-266.4 also provides: \u201cFrom and after the time that a subdivision ordinance is filed with the register of deeds of the county, no subdivision plat of land within the county\u2019s subdivision-regulation jurisdiction shall be filed or recorded until it shall have been submitted to and approved by the appropriate board, as specified in the subdivision ordinance, and until such approval shall have been entered on the face of the plat in writing by the chairman of said board. The register of deeds shall not file a plat of a subdivision of land located within the territorial jurisdiction of the county commissioners as defined in G.S. 153-266.1 hereof which has not been approved in accordance with these provisions, nor shall the clerk of superior court order or direct the recording of a plat where such recording would be in conflict with this section.\u201d\nThe misdemeanor defined in G.S. 153-266.6, quoted above, relates to a sale or transfer of land with reference to a plat showing a subdivision of land before such plat has been properly approved under the ordinance and recorded in the office of the appropriate register of deeds. Whether the contract of sale, deed or other instrument of transfer is recorded is immaterial. What G.S. 153-266.6 condemns as a misdemeanor is the description of land in any contract of sale, deed or other instrument of transfer by reference to a subdivision plat that has not been properly approved and recorded. Obviously, the sole purpose of G.S. 153-266.6 is to compel compliance with ordinance provisions which seek to prevent any subdivision of land covered by its terms unless and until the proposed subdivision map has been submitted to and approved by designated governmental agencies. See Cunningham, Land Use Control, 50 Iowa L. Rev. 367 at 423 (1965). Hence, decision of the controversy must turn upon the validity of the statutory and ordinance provisions as applied to defendant\u2019s proposed division of land. It would seem that all relevant facts necessary to determination of the crucial questions would be presented more appropriately in a civil action.\nDefendant contends the statutes comprising Article 20A, of Chapter 153, constitutes a local act \u201cauthorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys,\u201d in violation of Section 29, Article II, of the Constitution of North Carolina. The basis assigned for this contention is that, on May 17, 1965, when, according to the stipulation, the Guilford County Subdivision Ordinance was adopted, G.S. 153-266.9 provided: \u201cThis article (Article 20A, Chapter 153) shall not apply to the following counties: Bertie, Brunswick, Caswell, Craven, Franklin, Greene, Hoke, Pender, Scotland and Washington.\u201d (Note: G.S. 153-266.9 was repealed by Chapter 1010, Session Laws of T969, effective July 1, 1969.)\nWhether Article 20A, Chapter 153, as of May 17, 1965, was a local act is immaterial. In Deese v. Lumberton, 211 N.C. 31, 34, 188 S.E. 857, 858, and cases cited, this Court held Section 29, Article II, of the Constitution of North Carolina, applies only to a local act which authorizes the \u201claying out, opening, altering, or discontinuing of a given particular and designated highway, street, or alley.\u201d Accord: In re Assessments, 243 N.C. 494, 498, 91 S.E. 2d 171, 173.\nArticle 20A, Chapter 153, authorizes, as set forth above, the adoption by county commissioners of a subdivision ordinance. G.S. 153-266.3 includes a provision that \u201c(s)uch ordinance may provide . . . for the coordination of streets and highways within proposed subdivisions with existing or planned streets and highways and with other public facilities.\u201d G.S. 153-266.4 provides that such ordinance shall contain a provision to the effect that, prior to the approval of any subdivision plat, the district highway engineer will be given opportunity to make recommendations \u201cas to proposed streets, highways, and drainage systems.\u201d In our opinion, and we so hold, these statutory provisions as to what may and what must be included in a county subdivision ordinance do not constitute \u201cauthorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys,\u201d within the meaning of Section 29, Article II, of the Constitution of North Carolina.\nSince neither the provisions of the ordinance nor the nature of defendant\u2019s proposed subdivision are before us, we deem it inappropriate, upon the present record, to consider other grounds, advanced by defendant in his brief on appeal, upon which he bases contentions that G.S. 153-266.6 is unconstitutional.\nOur decision, which affirms Judge Burgwyn\u2019s ruling, is based solely on the ground the warrant does not charge all essential elements of the misdemeanor created by and defined in G.S. 153-266.6.\nAffirmed.\nMoore, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, C.J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.", "Turner, Rollins, Rollins & Suggs for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. J. N. McBANE\nNo. 23\n(Filed 10 December 1969)\n1. Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 county subdivision ordinance \u2014 sale of land by reference to plat not approved and recorded \u2014 misdemeanor \u2014 prerequisite to conviction\nAs one of tbe prerequisites to conviction for violation of G.S. 153-266.6, it must be alleged and established that an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land was adopted by the board of county commissioners in accordance with the authority conferred by G.S. 153-266.1 et seq.\n2. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014 motion to quash for failure to charge offense \u2014 basis of decision\nWhen a warrant or indictment is challenged by a timely motion to quash on the ground it fails to charge a criminal offense, decision must be based solely on the contents of such warrant or indictment.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 13\u2014 jurisdiction \u2014 valid indictment or warrant\nA valid warrant or indictment is an essential of jurisdiction.\n4. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014 charge of all essential elements of offense \u2014 G.S. 15-153 and G.S. 15-155\nNothing in G.S. 15-153 or in G.S. 15-155 dispenses with the requirement that the warrant or indictment charge all the essential elements of the offense.\n5. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014 statutory offenses \u2014 sufficiency of indictment\nA warrant or indictment following substantially the language of the statute is sufficient if and when it thereby charges the essentials of the offense in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner, but if the statutory words fail to do this they must be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.\n6. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014 statutory offenses \u2014 reference to statute \u2014 sufficiency of indictment\nA warrant or indictment merely charging in general terms a breach of the statute and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.\n7. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9; Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 general allegation of statutory violation \u2014 sufficiency of indictment\nThe general allegation that defendant\u2019s conduct constituted a misdemeanor in violation of G.S. 153-266.6 is insufficient to charge a violation of that statute.\n8. Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 county subdivision ordinance \u2014 sale of land by reference to plat not approved and recorded \u2014 misdemeanor \u2014 sufficiency of warrant\nIn this prosecution for the misdemeanor of selling or transferring land subject to a county subdivision ordinance with reference to a plat showing a subdivision of land before such plat had been properly approved under the ordinance and recorded, a violation of G.S. 153-266.6, the warrant is fatally defective where it fails to- allege that defendant was the owner or agent of the owner of land within the platting jurisdiction granted to the county commissioners by G.S. 153-266.1.\n9. Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 crime defined by G.S. 153-266.6\nWhat G.S. 153-266.6 condemns as a misdemeanor is the description of land in any contract of sale, deed or other instrument of transfer by reference to a subdivision plat that has not been properly approved and recorded, it being immaterial whether the contract of sale, deed or other instrument of transfer is recorded.\n10. Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 county subdivision ordinance \u2014 purpose of G.S. 153-266.6\nThe sole purpose of G.S. 153-266.6 is to compel compliance with ordinance provisions which seek to prevent any subdivision of land covered by its terms unless and until the proposed subdivision map has been submitted to and approved by the designated governmental agencies.\n11. Statutes \u00a7 2\u2014 local acts authorizing laying out, etc. of highways, streets or alleys \u2014 constitutional prohibition\nSection 29, Article II, of the Constitution of North Carolina prohibits a local act which authorizes the laying out, opening, altering or discontinuing of a given particular and designated highway, street or alley.\n12. Statutes \u00a7 2; Counties \u00a7 5.5\u2014 authorizing laying out, etc. of highways and streets \u2014 G.S. 153-266.3 and G.S. 153-266.4\nProvisions of G.S. 153-266.3 and G.S. 153-266.4 setting forth what may and what must be included in a county subdivision ordinance do not constitute \u201cauthorizing the laying put, opening, altering, maintaining or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys\u201d within the meaning of Section 29, Article II, of the Constitution of North Carolina.\nMoobe, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by the State from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, May 26, 1969 Criminal Session of Guileoed Superior Court, certified, pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, for review by the Supreme Court before determination by the Court of Appeals.\nThe magistrate's warrant on which this criminal prosecution is based authorized the arrest of defendant \u25a0 for the alleged criminal offense described in the attached affidavit of Lindsay W. Cox, Guil-ford County Planning Director, viz.:\n\u201cThe undersigned, Lindsay Cox, being duly sworn, complains and says that at and in the County named above and on or about the 26th day of January, 1967, the defendant named above did unlawfully, wilfully, did transfer or sell certain property described in the deed recorded in Deed Book, 2331, at page 32, in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Guilford County Courthouse, Greensboro, North Carolina, by reference to a plat showing a sub-division of land before such plat had been properly approved under the Guilford County Sub-Division Ordinance and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Guilford County, such reference constituting the committing of a misdemeanor in accordance with Chapter 153-266.6 which is incorporated in the Guilford County Sub-Division Ordinance at Section 23.\n\u201cThe offense charged here was committed against the peace and dignity of the State and in violation of law according to Chapter 153-266.6 of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina.\u201d\nIn the district court, defendant moved to quash the warrant. Upon denial of his motion, defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The court found the defendant guilty and entered the following judgment: \u201cPrayer for Judgment continued 12 months Pay 50.00 fine and cost.\u201d Defendant appealed.\nIn the superior court, before pleading to the accusation set forth therein, defendant moved to quash the warrant on the ground \u201cthe same does not charge an offense under the laws of North Carolina, the statute referred to being unconstitutional, invalid and void.\u201d The court allowed defendant\u2019s motion and entered judgment quashing the warrant and dismissing the action. Neither the motion to quash nor the judgment indicates any specific ground for holding G.S. 153-266.6 unconstitutional.\nThe State excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.\nTurner, Rollins, Rollins & Suggs for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0060-01", "first_page_order": 86, "last_page_order": 94 }