{
  "id": 2090101,
  "name": "Doe on dem. of JAMES M. KERR v. R. W. ELLIOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe on dem. of Kerr v. Elliott",
  "decision_date": "1868-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "601",
  "last_page": "602",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. 601"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. 601"
    }
  ],
  "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": 205,
    "char_count": 2730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.2118536531189e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43092396506514474
    },
    "sha256": "374f4a36f5302bc4c591ddd5904b3b255adf2af76ed0b308d3893b5cc253e4fd",
    "simhash": "1:96b01c86b65a1de8",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:16.220923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe on dem. of JAMES M. KERR v. R. W. ELLIOTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nThe survey shows that the cleared ground as indicated by \u201cthe dots\u201d was north and inside of the line of the defendant D S E and that the defendant, as soon as he purchased, in December 1848, took possession immediately north of the cleared ground, and this possession, according to the evidence, was continued and extended from time to time, north to the line N O. .\nSo the defendant ever since December 1848 has had a possession inside of the lappage which exposed him to an action; and consequently ripened his title after seven years adverse possession under the deed. The fact that he from time to time extended his possession, that is took in more land, does not at all affect the question; and the matter is too plain to admit of discussion.\nThere is no error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Osborne and Boyden, for the appellant.",
      "J. H. Wilson, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe on dem. of JAMES M. KERR v. R. W. ELLIOTT.\nIf the person who claims under the elder title, have no actual possession of a lappage, such possession, although for a part only, by him who has the junior title continued for seven years, will confer a valid title for the whole.\nEjectment, tried, before Mitchell, J., at December (Special) Term 1867 of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg.\nThe elder title to the land in dispute was in the'plain tiff; and the land was a lappage between 7ns\u2019southern line (DS E) and the northern line (N 0) of the defendant. In 1842 one Orr, who then claimed the tract now owned by the defendant, conveyed it to one Frazier -by a deed which covered the lappage', and on the 11th of December 1848 the defendant purchased the tract (with the same extent) of Frazier, taking at first a bond for the title, and-in 1852 a conveyance.\nOn the plats'[used in the trial below] immediately north of D S E, were dots representing a narrow space of cleared ground adjoining D S E. Two witnesses who were called for the defendant testified that they were not certain, to their own knowledge, of the location of the line D S E, but that the defendant as soon as he purchased, viz. in December 1848, took possession immediately north of the cleared ground, that this possession was continued and extended north to and along the line N 0 before the commencement of this suit.\nThe court instructed the jury that if tire evidence of these witnesses was believed by them, the defendant was entitled to a verdict; and there was a verdict accordingly.\nRule for a New Trial \u201con the ground that the two witnesses did not know with certainty the location of the said line D S E, and that their evidence did not with sufficient certainty locate the commencement of the defendant\u2019s possession.\u201d Rule discharged; Judgment, and Appeal by the plain tiff.\nOsborne and Boyden, for the appellant.\nJ. H. Wilson, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0601-01",
  "first_page_order": 613,
  "last_page_order": 614
}