{
  "id": 8692894,
  "name": "DOE EX DEM. JEFFERSON DULA vs. LUCY M'GHEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe ex rel. Dula v. M'Ghee",
  "decision_date": "1851-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "332",
  "last_page": "334",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 332"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 332"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Hay. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11981442,
        11981502
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0327-01",
        "/nc/3/0327-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11971122
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Haw. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Haw.",
      "case_ids": [
        8825718
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/haw/1/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11981442,
        11981502
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0327-01",
        "/nc/3/0327-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11971122
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0160-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3950,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1573644961299344e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7693618431035941
    },
    "sha256": "1e83515481052bc4708e5aed5644f65f5dc7dd71848fa37fbfbeecdd1c568a81",
    "simhash": "1:a1fb88880afa3315",
    "word_count": 757
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DOE EX DEM. JEFFERSON DULA vs. LUCY M\u2019GHEE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nThe action is ejectment. The plaintiff claims under a grant issued by the State to him in 1848, which oovers the locus in quo. The defendant introduced a grant from the State to David McGhee, dated in 1788, which commenced at the index in the plat and ran around to figure 3. Its call is for a line thence west, crossing Beaver\u2019s Creek to a Hickory corner on said Creek; then South to the beginning. The defendant then gave in evidence a conveyance from David McGhee to his son Bluford Mc-Ghee, under whom she claims. This deed for the northern part of the Patent, has its calls for a chesnut tree on the top of the Low mountain, and run around to the corner of the grant at the figure 3; and it calls thence west to the corner, a Hickory ; then South to the beginning. A grant from the State to Bluford McGhee, dated in 1818, was then exhibited. The calls of that grant are, \u201clying on Beaver\u2019s Creek, beginning on a Hickory on the hill-side, west of the field, being Ellison\u2019s, now Horton\u2019s, Hickory corner \u2014 in said McGhee\u2019s own line ; then west with Ellison\u2019s line 62 poles to a gum, poplar and a white-oak on a ridge ; then south to a stake in his own line near the conditional corner ; then north xoiih his old line to the beginning.\u201d It is evident from these calls in the two grants to the McGhees, and the mesne donveyance to Bluford, there is no vacant land between the two former. The plaintiff contends, that the third line of the old grant stops at the letter D. on the diagram, and runs a direct course to the letter C.: the defendant, that it continues on to A., and then a direct course to the index. \u2022 To the present enquiry it is not important at which of the two points the true terminus is; for, the closing line from that point to the index must be the boundary or line of the grant of 1788; Hough v Horn, 4 Dev. and Bat. 228. The grant to Bluford McGhee calls for a beginning in his own line and closes the third line at a stake in his old line, and makes the old line his closing line. His father had in 1808 conveyed to him the northern part of his grant, and the third line runs \u201c west to the corner, a hickory\u201d \u2014 evidently meaning the hickory, which is the terminus of the third line of the grant, and then to the beginning. The surveyor proves, that the conditional corner mentioned in the conveyance to Bluford McGhee and called for in his grant, was near to, the letter H. in the plat, and nearly on the line A. B.. Where a grant calls for the line of an older grant, the rule is, that it must go to it, unless a natural object or a marked tree is called for, and before the calls of the junior grant can be ascertained, those of the elder must be located. This is established by many decisions; Miller v White, 2 Hay. 160, - v Heritage, 2 Hay. 327, Bradbury v Hooks, N. C. T. Rep. 1, Tate v Southard, 1 Haw. 45. Now it is claimed by the plaintiff, that the closing line of the old grant runs from D., either to the index or to the letter C. If so, the closing line of Bluford\u2019s grant must go to the same; for, by the conveyance to him in 1808, the same line is called for.\nNo error is perceived in the charge of the Court, and judgment is affirmed.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gui\u00f3n, for the plaintiff.",
      "Boy den, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOE EX DEM. JEFFERSON DULA vs. LUCY M\u2019GHEE.\nWhen a grant calls for the line of an old grant, the rule is, that it must go to it, unless a natural object or a marked tree is called for, and, before the calls of the junior grant can be ascertained, those of the old must be located.\nThe case of Miller v White, 2 Hay. 160 ;-- v Heritage, 2 Hay. 327 ; Bradbury v Hooks, No. Oa. Hop. 1, and Tate v Southard, 1 Hawk., 45, , cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wilkes County, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.\nThe facts of the case are set out in the opinion of the Court. There was judgment tor the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. '\nGui\u00f3n, for the plaintiff.\nBoy den, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0332-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 342
}