{
  "id": 8695315,
  "name": "Den on demise of William Tate's heirs v. Ephraim Greenlee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den on demise of Tate's heirs v. Greenlee",
  "decision_date": "1819-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Mur. 556"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. 556"
    }
  ],
  "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": 218,
    "char_count": 3002,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.406,
    "sha256": "9fce5b2bfe3d332fbedc099e924b7dcf5efb0c945410793c9924de30ce65ac25",
    "simhash": "1:5c1fa4f42af48483",
    "word_count": 549
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den on demise of William Tate\u2019s heirs v. Ephraim Greenlee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Judge,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nFrom the case, it appears that the Judge charged the Jury that the fifth line of the Defendant\u2019s grant terminated at the end of the distance. From viewing the grant and the plat only, if is quite probable that wo as Jurors would arrive at the same conclusion. But, as has been frequently said during the present term, boundary is a question of fact, or of law and fact combined, and proper only for the decision of the Jury. For the purpose of giving the decision of the question to the proper tribunal, there must be a new trial. The cases of Reddick and wife v. Leggat, and Orbison v. Morrison, decided at this term, and of Cherry and Slade, decided at the last term, contain a more full view of the principles which govern the Court in this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Den on demise of William Tate\u2019s heirs v. Ephraim Greenlee.\nFrom Burke.\nBoundary is a question of fact, or of law and fact combined, and propei-only for the decision of the Jury. If the presiding Judge in his charge to the Jury intimate an opinion as to the fact, it is a good ground for a new trial \u00a1 for the act of 1796, ch. 4, declares, \u201c that it shall not be lawful for any Judge in delivering a charge to the Jury, to give an opin\u201cion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved, such matter being the \u201ctrue office and province of the Jury.\u201d\nThe Defendant claimed title to the land in question, under an older grant than that under which the Plaintiff claimed; and the question between the parties arose from the boundaries called for in the Defendant\u2019s grant. This grant called for six hundred and forty acres, \u201c lying in \u201c the county of Burke, on the waters of Silver Creek, \u201c bounded bij lands of his own (Greenlee,) John Bowman, \" John Mackey and Job Morgan : beginning at Bowman\u2019s \u201c south east corner black oak, thence with Mackey\u2019s land \u201c south 23\u00b0 east 354 poles to a post oak on the side of a ee ridge, thence east 230 poles to a pine on the side of the \u201c road leading from Burke to Broad river, thence north \u00ab 68\u00b0 west 89 poles to Morgan\u2019s corner black oak, thence \u201c north 18\u00b0 oast 92 poles to a stake, thence west 295 poles \u201c to a .stake, on Bowman\u2019s line, thence south 46 poles to \u201c the beginning.\u201d The question was where\u2019 the ffih line should terminate ? If it terminate at the distance called for in the grant, no part of this tract will adjoin other lands of the Defendant (Greenlee,) nor will any part of the lands claimed by the lessors of the Plaintiff be covered by the Defendant\u2019s grant. If the fifth line be extended a considerable distance beyond that called for in the grant, it will reach a tract of land belonging' to the Defendant, and the Defendant\u2019s grant will cover the lands claimed by the lessors of the Plaintiff.\nThe Court charged the Jury, that the fifth line terminated at the end of the distance called for in the grant. A verdict was found for the Plaintiff $ and a rule for a new trial being obtained, and on argument discharged, the Defendant appealed."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 561
}