{
  "id": 8682233,
  "name": "DAVID V. McCRACKEN vs. JAMES R. LOVE",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCracken v. Love",
  "decision_date": "1864-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "96",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Win. 96"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.C. 96"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2071,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.295,
    "sha256": "5652db76b0de5a483b8d8381818ad585c7cbdf51902b5d78bcfcc0e34f8cba3b",
    "simhash": "1:8aa833ebafafb7c6",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:57.689025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID V. McCRACKEN vs. JAMES R. LOVE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "S\u00cdANiiT, J.\nThe bill is filed to obtain from the defendant an account of the profits of certain'land, which, it i* alleged, the parties hold as tenants in common ; and to obtain a sale, or a division- of the same,, in accordance with the rights of the parties, which are set forth.\nA .general demurrer to the bill is put in, which, we are informed, is based upon a supposed allegation in the bill that the defendant is in adverse possession, claiming to be sole seized of the. lands.,\nWe hare examined the bill, and do not find anything which can bear such an interpretation. The words relied upon, are these : li Your orator further showeth that the \u00abaid James R. Lore has received the rents and profit* arising from said lands, and has appropriated the same to his ovrn use and benefit.\u201d\nThis is but .the common language of one tenant in common, who thinks his cotenant has wronged him, by the reception of profits, and by no means implies .a denial by the defendant of tbe plaintiff\u2019s interest in the land, and .rights to any profits.\nThe defendant may plead, that he is sole\u2019seized, and thus bring forward tire,matter which he is endeavoring here to interpose to prevent a partition*- but the pleadings are not now in a condition to raise any such point. The demurrer must be overruled; and the defendant required to answer.\nThis decision must be certified to that end.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "S\u00cdANiiT, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Bailey for the defendant.",
      "Mo counsel in this Court for plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID V. McCRACKEN vs. JAMES R. LOVE.\nA statement, in a bjU for the sale or partition of land\u00bb, and an account of-the rents and profits received by the defendant, that the defendant \u201chas received the rents and profits and appropriated then? to his own ase and, benefit,\" does not imply that the defendant is possessed adversely to the plaintiff, and is, therefore, no cause of demurrer.\nThis cause was removed from the \u2018Court of Equity of Haywood county to this Court for argument, upon a demurrer to the bill.\nSo much of the pleadings as\u00ed is necessary to the understanding of the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.\nW. H. Bailey for the defendant.\nMo counsel in this Court for plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0096-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 99
}