{
  "id": 8693367,
  "name": "ALFRED HOUSTON v. A. D. McGOWEN and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houston v. McGowen",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 370"
    }
  ],
  "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": 275,
    "char_count": 4968,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.356768290352063
    },
    "sha256": "1ee97e78f0f04bc373e7953909c887b980ead48824da02a05f70a0ef37fa2295",
    "simhash": "1:ef0c418d0cb26c4b",
    "word_count": 904
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALFRED HOUSTON v. A. D. McGOWEN and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nWhat did the Sheriff sell ? is the question. Did he sell the plaintiff\u2019s interest in the tract of land of' 1900 acres? or did he sell his interest in 950 acres of land ? There ought not to have been any difficulty about it, for a .Sheriff'ought always to ascertain what it is he is about to sell, and to put it to sale at the best advantage. And if he l'ailrtodo so he is liable to the person interested, in damages. And if the purchaser at such unfair sale is in complicity with the Sheriff, the sale itself may be avoided.\nHire theie was conflicting evidence as to whether the Sheriff sold a 1900 acre tract, or 950 acres out of a tract,.\u2022 and the levy does not help us out of the difficulty, for that is \u201c upon his interest in 950 acres located in Cypress Creek Uistiict, adjoining the lands of,\u201d &e. The return of sale is a little more definite, being \u201cthe 950 acre tract of land levied on,\u201d &c., showing that it was not apart of a tract but a tract of land. And the Sheriff\u2019s deed is for 1750 acres leaving out 50 acres, and for 100 acres all of which added make 1900 acres. Surely the Sheriff ought not to have dis-chaiged his duty so carelessly. TIis imperfect excuse is, as we suppose, that the plaintiff who was then the defendant in the execution was tenant in common with another in a 1900 acre tract, his undivided interest being equal to 9501 acres. And the Sheriff confusedly called it' his interest in 950 acres, which was half of the 1900 acre tract, and the plaintiff in this case who was defendant in that, is more in fault than the Sheriff\", for he was present at the sale, knew of the Sheriff\u2019s mistake, and did not correct it, and called a \"witness\u2019 attention to it, probably for the purpose of making \u00a1a fuss about it.\nAlthough there was all this irregularity, yet the Sheriff :swears that he intended to sell, and proclaimed that he \u2022would sell, and did sell, all the interest which the then defendant had in all his land in that District, and that his \u25a0 deed to these defendants by metes and bounds covers the 1900 acres.\nAnd to put the matter beyond dispute, so far as we can ^consider it, the jury found that these defendants bought, .\u25a0and the Sheriff sold the whole interest of this plaintiff in \u2022the 1900 acres.\nThe Sheriff having in his hands a fi. fa. and ven. ex. conferring upon him a power of sale, the question is not so .anueh what did he levy on, as what did he sell?\nThe jury find that he sold the debtor\u2019s interest in the whole 1900 acres, and that is conclusive. There is no force_ In the other objections. There is no eiror. This will be \u2022 certified. The defendants will recover costs in this Court.\nNo error.\nPee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. H. R. Korncgay, for plaintiff",
      "3Icssrs. Iff. A. Alkn Son and J. N. Stallings, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALFRED HOUSTON v. A. D. McGOWEN and others.\nSheriff\u2019s Deed \u2014 Description of Land.\nOn the trial of an issue as to the quantity of land conveyed in a Sheriff\u2019s deed, there was conflicting evidence as to whether a 1900 acre tract or 950 acres out of the tract had been sold ; it appeared that the levy was \u201cupon his (xflain tiff's) interest in 950 acres located in. Cypress Creek District,\u201d &c., and the return of sale was \u201cthe 950' acre tract levied on\u201d &c.; the Sheriff\u2019s deed was for 1750 acres (leaving out 50 acres) and for 100 acres, and it was in evidence that the-Sheriff sold it as the plaintiff\u2019s interest in 950 acres, and proclaimed at the sale that he would sell all the interest which the plaintiff had in all his land in that district, and that plaintiff who was present at the sale knew of the Sheriff\u2019s mistake and did not correct it; the jury found that the defendant bought and the Sheriff sold the whole-interest of the plaintiff in the 1900 acre tract; Held, that the verdict of the jury is conclusive and that the plaintiff can not recover.\nSpecial ProceediN& commenced in the Probate Court and upon issues joined, removed to and tried at Spring; Term, 1877, of Duplin Superior Court, before Seymour J.\nThe plaintiff alleged that he was tenant in common with the defendants in certain lands (1900'acres) lying on Cypress Creek in Duplin County, and fr\u00aem the rent of which the-defendants had received a considerable sum of money, and asked that an account be taken of the amount of said rent to the end that he may have judgment for the same.\nIn 1869 judgments were obtained against the plaintiff\u2019 and his interest in said land was sold at execution sale and bought by the defendants, who claimed the same under a deed executed to them by the Sheriff.\nThere was conflicting evidence as to whether the Sheriff levied upon and sold the plaintiff\u2019s interest in 1900 acres,, or in 950 acres of land, and upon that issue the jury found that he sold his interest in 1900 acres. The plaintiff moved for judgment according to his complaint, notwithstanding the verdict, which was refused. Judgment for defendants. Appeal by plaintiff. (See Williams v. Houston, 71-1G3.)\nMr. H. R. Korncgay, for plaintiff\n3Icssrs. Iff. A. Alkn Son and J. N. Stallings, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 388
}