{
  "id": 8682260,
  "name": "W. B. WRIGHT and wife v. R. M. McCORMICK and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. McCormick",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": "69 N. C. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085579
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085579
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0014-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2576,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20790266150652026
    },
    "sha256": "8b9cbf27fc8541a5b9d1612d92d39b549d15b274d859e3a52e7a62308361b239",
    "simhash": "1:6b7705b43c25ce30",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. B. WRIGHT and wife v. R. M. McCORMICK and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe feme plaintiff and the devisor of the defendants were tenants in common of a tract of land; and under proper proceedings bad in Court, partition of the land was made between them, allotting to each a share in severalty. An appeal was taken to this Court upon the objection by the defendants that the commissioners bad divided the wrong tract of land, but the description in the complaint- and in the report were identical, and the objection was held to be \u201c captious and frivolous.\u201d Wright v. McCormick, 69 N. C. 14.\nThe devisor of the defendants \u2022 died before the final confirmation of the report of the commissioners and the defendants were made parties defendant, and the report of partition was confirmed and a proper decree made.\nThe complaint states that since that time the defendants-have taken possession of the land allotted to plaintiffs. The answer denies every thing and claims title and admits possession, \u201csole seizin.\u201d Seizin in deed, as this must be taken to be, is possession. the plaintiffs\u2019 proof of title \u2014 the record of partition before stated \u2014 was complete, and the defendants\u2019 possession was admitted. The plaintiffs were clearly entitled to recover.\nThere is no error.\nPee. Curiam. Judgment affirmed'.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. McRae $ Broadfoot and N. W. Ray, -for plaintiffs-",
      "Messrs. Guthrie $ Carr, B. Fuller and Neill McKay, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. B. WRIGHT and wife v. R. M. McCORMICK and others.\nPractice--Aetion to Recover Land \u2014 Partition.\nWhere in an action for the recovery of land the plaintiff showed titles under proper proceedings in partition and the defendant admitted possession ; Meld, that plaintiff was entitled to recover.\n( Wrigid v. McCormick, 69 JSf. O. 14, cited'and approved.)\nCivil AotioN to recover Possession of Land, tried at-Spring Term, 1877, of CumberlaNd Superior Court, before McKoy, J.\nThe plaintiffs read in evidence a petition, order of partition, appointment of commissioners, and an order confirming their report in the case of the'present plaintiffs against Bun-can McCormick, the devisor of the present defendants, and under whom the defendants claim the land in dispute. See .69 N. C. 14. The description of the land in the complaint-was the same as in said petition, decree and report of commissioners.\nTbe defendants adt\u00ediitted that they were in possession of' tbe land at tbe time tbe action was brought! and tbe plaintiffs demanded possession of .tbe same upon' tbe ground that it was allotted to them in tbe said proceeding for partition.His Honor gave judgment for tbe plaintiffs and the defendants appealed.\nMessrs. McRae $ Broadfoot and N. W. Ray, -for plaintiffs-\nMessrs. Guthrie $ Carr, B. Fuller and Neill McKay, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 172,
  "last_page_order": 173
}