{
  "id": 11968669,
  "name": "Hanks vs. Tucker",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanks v. Tucker",
  "decision_date": "1801-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "147",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 147"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 147"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 96,
    "char_count": 852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.341,
    "sha256": "38af085f781230a0459dcea3dd8f9d1c64f20a734e9f23d1b1b98d30361adb65",
    "simhash": "1:8f427168124d8c44",
    "word_count": 145
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hanks vs. Tucker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per-curiam\u2022\nUnder the act of .1715, or of 1791, possession, of itseff wnl give no title to the possessor; but 'aa uniform'pos-. session for 40 years u.nder circumstances which, convince the-jury that a grant'once existed, is a ground for them to go upon, in saying there was a grant.. If the jury in the present instance are satisfied from the evidence laid before- them, that- a grant did, exist, they will find, for the, defendant.\nYerdiet for the defendant, '",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per-curiam\u2022"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hanks vs. Tucker.\n\"j^N this case the defendant could not produce a ueed or patent,, or other colourable title, but proved possession for 40 years under marked lines, with some other circumstances, such as the reputation of the neighborhood for a long time back, that the. \u00edan da were the defendant\u2019s ; and an acknowledgement cm did part of the plaintiff, that they were covered by patent."
  },
  "file_name": "0147-03",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 152
}