{
  "id": 8684793,
  "name": "MARGARET McCLENNAN v. ALEXANDER McCLEOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "McClennan v. McCleod",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 64"
    }
  ],
  "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": "13 Ired. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ired. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275923
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/27/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ired., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ired. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275923
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/27/0569-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2677,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20793007623224366
    },
    "sha256": "47c3051306de60fed7523378080f3586e89d0039d45c779de197a6ff1a34ae2f",
    "simhash": "1:897b48fc22c90fc4",
    "word_count": 469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARGARET McCLENNAN v. ALEXANDER McCLEOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\nAll the other counts have been abandoned! except the count upon the demise of Farquhar Martin, and. by a former decision of this Court that demise has been-held to be sufficient to maintain this action. 70 N. C. Rep., 364. The lessor was a purchaser at sheriff's sale under a fi. fa. against the defendant. The defendant was living on the land at the time of the sale\u2018and at the beginning of. this action, and is still living on it. The defendant cannot defend, as he attempts to do, by setting up title in third persons. After entering a defence to the action, he-cannot be permitted to allege that others are also in possession with him and have the title and the sole possession. If. the person thus sued meant to disavow any possession in himself, he should not have entered any defence. Doe ex. dem.; Thomas v. Orrell, 5 Ired., 569; Judge v. Houston, 13 Ired., 108. These established principles are decisive of this case. The McDuffie tract of land only is in dispute in; this action. As to that, it appears that when the lessor of the plaintiff purchased, the defendant was only one of several heirs who inherited the land upon the death of John McLeod, who was known as \u201c Bahama John.\u201d If- that is so, the lessor of. the plaintiff, by the purchase of Alexander McLeod\u2019s interest, became a tenant in common with the \u25a0 other, heirs.. The,-judgment in this action cannot affect their rights, as they are not parties. The writ of possession upon the judgment to which the lessor of the'plaintiff i:s here entitled will be executed by him at his own peril.\nThe exceptions to the charge of his Honor are not tenable.There is no error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. D. Mclver, Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe, for the appellant;.",
      "Neill McKay and Pemberton, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARGARET McCLENNAN v. ALEXANDER McCLEOD.\nAfter a defendant lias entered a defence to an action of Ejectment, lie cannot be permitted to allege, that others are also in possession with him, and have the title and the sole possession. If such defendant meant to disavow any possession in himself, lie should not have entered any, de-fence.\n{Thomas v. Orrell, 5 Ired. 569; and Judge v. Houston, 13 Ired. 108, cited and approved.)\nThis was an action of Ejectment instituted prior to the adoption of the C. C. P., and tried before Buxton, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of the Superior Court of Montgomeey County.\nThe record is voluminous, the declaration containing many counts, and a great deal of evidence was introduced.\nThe facts necessary to an understanding of the case as decided are stated in the opinion of the Court.\nThere was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nJ. D. Mclver, Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe, for the appellant;.\nNeill McKay and Pemberton, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 72,
  "last_page_order": 74
}