{
  "id": 11273963,
  "name": "ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. J. K. PURIFOY et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atlantic, Tennessee & Ohio Railroad v. Purifoy",
  "decision_date": "1886-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. 302"
    }
  ],
  "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": 217,
    "char_count": 3036,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.021147979749158e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46470778798300594
    },
    "sha256": "c838a5acfeae6d59bee6e18802f9d7e891abb567ef061abf7d072c05aeb4d153",
    "simhash": "1:95f3cd836e0cd46a",
    "word_count": 543
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:31.449463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. J. K. PURIFOY et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerrimON, J.\n(after stating the facts). It had been better if the jury h'ad answered in terms and formally each question embraced by the first issue. But by plain and necessary implication, the response to it is, in effect, a negative answer to each of these questions. The verdict must be taken and interpreted in connection with the issue, and thus interpreted, it unmistakably implies that there was no such deed as that described in the issue, for any part of the land in question. If there was no such deed for any part of the land, then there was none such as inquired about. There was, therefore, no such deed lost or destroyed at any time, and hence, the second and third issues were immaterial, and a verdict upon them was unnecessary.\nThe verdict was intelligible, and in effect, ascertained the fact in question. It was clearly not void, and the Court properly declined to so declare. If in any aspect of the matter, the Court could see that the plaintiff had suffered prejudice because the verdict was not fuller and more explicit, it might have set it aside, and directed a new trial; but it seems that the Court was satisfied with it, and therefore refused to grant the motion of the appellant in the exercise of its discretionary power.\nThere is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed!\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerrimON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. \u00ed\u00bf. D. Johnston, for the plaintiff.",
      "Mr. T. M. Pittman, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. J. K. PURIFOY et als.\nIssues\u2014 Verdict.\n1. The vei-dict must be taken in connection with, and interpreted by the issue, and when by necessary implication the answer to the issue disposes of the matter in controvery, it will not be set aside, although not so full as might be desirable.\n2. So, where in an action to set up a lost deed, the jury found that the defendant had not executed a deed for any part of the land, but did not specifically find that no deed was- ever executed, it was held, that the verdict was sufficiently responsive.\nCivil action, tried before Shipp, Judge, and a jury, at August Term, 1885, of Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThe following is a copy of the issues submitted to the jury on the trial, and the response to the first one. They did not respond to the second and third ones:\nI. \u201cDid Mortimer Johnson execute and deliver a deed to the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio Railroad company in 1859 or 1860, for the land in controversy, or any part thereof? If so, what part?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo part.\u201d\nII. \u201cHas same been lost or destroyed?\nIII. \u201c When was the deed lost of destroyed, if lost or destroyed ?\u201d\nIt appears from the case stated on appeal, that upon the rendition of the verdict set out in the record, the counsel for plaintiff moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the verdict was not a proper response to the issue, and was insensible; and also moved that the verdict be set aside, and a new trial granted. The Court refused the motion of the counsel of plain - .tiff, and rendered judgment for the defendant.\nPlaintiff appealed to Supreme Court.\nMr. \u00ed\u00bf. D. Johnston, for the plaintiff.\nMr. T. M. Pittman, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 328,
  "last_page_order": 329
}