{
  "id": 8688528,
  "name": "J. W. HEPTINSTALL v. E. B. PERRY and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heptinstall v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "190",
  "last_page": "191",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 190"
    }
  ],
  "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": 104,
    "char_count": 1151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140588891475912
    },
    "sha256": "1cc7c793897384ea467b70cf1986ae296a388c00d13cbaa7eb06a7e42778e597",
    "simhash": "1:18dfa4de050a09e4",
    "word_count": 193
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. HEPTINSTALL v. E. B. PERRY and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe statute is so plain as to leave no room for construction.\nThe application for re-assessment and allotment of homestead must be before the sale of the excess by the Sheriff, Bat. Rev. ch. 55, \u00a7 20.\nNo error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Moore \u00a7\u25a0\u25a0 Gatling and E. Conigland, for the plaintiff",
      "No counsel for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. HEPTINSTALL v. E. B. PERRY and others.\nHomestead \u2014 Assessment.\nUnder Bat. Rev. cb. 55, \u00a7 20, the application for a re-assessment of a homestead by the Township Board of Trustees must be made before the sale of the excess by the Sheriff.\nCivil ActioN tried at Fall Term, J 875, of IIalieax Superior Court, before Watts, J.\nThe plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants, execution issued thereon and the homestead of the judgment debtor was laid off. About six months after the sale of the excess by the Sheriff, the plaintiff becoming dissatisfied requested a re-appraisement and re-allotment of' said homestead, and to that end applied for a peremptory mandamus to be directed to the Township Hoard of Trustees, the other defendants, which Idis Honor refused and the plaintiff\u2019 appealed.\nMessrs. Moore \u00a7\u25a0\u25a0 Gatling and E. Conigland, for the plaintiff\nNo counsel for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0190-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 203
}