{
  "id": 11275445,
  "name": "THE STATE on the relation of ROBERT HANCOCK, Jr., v. ORLANDO HUBBS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Hancock v. Hubbs",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "590",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 589"
    }
  ],
  "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": 201,
    "char_count": 2843,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.308264690335228
    },
    "sha256": "3a7ef396a50a7c7e3973b033e472e54631f81a8e1b8f2a303aa16175f0e0c2d5",
    "simhash": "1:96d2c08d18fa7e9d",
    "word_count": 467
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE on the relation of ROBERT HANCOCK, Jr., v. ORLANDO HUBBS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MebbimoN, J.\nThe complaint sufficiently alleges a cause \u2022of action, but it certainly contains much unnecessary redundant matter, including evidential facts. This is all .surplusage, and to be disregarded as part of the pleadings. The demurrer applies only to the constituent and material allegations of the complaint, and, for the purposes of deciding the questions of law presented by the record, these must be accepted as true. It is distinctly alleged that the whole number of votes cast at the election was .a number designated; that of them the relator received a number mentioned \u2014 a majority of the whole number; that other persons received votes less than a majority, and that the relator, having received such majority, was duly elected. This is a constituent allegation to which the demurrer properly applies. So that the complaint does allege that the relator received \u201c a majority of the votes cast at said election,\u201d and the cause of demurrer cannot be sustained.\nIn other respects this case is fully embraced by what was \u2022decided in Gatling v. Boone, Hahn v. Stinson and Kilburn v. Batterson, of the present term. There is no error.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MebbimoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. H. R. Bryan and M. H W. Stevenson, for the plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. W. W. Glark and G. M. Busbee, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE on the relation of ROBERT HANCOCK, Jr., v. ORLANDO HUBBS.\nE lections \u2014 Pleading.\nWhere the complaint set forth the whole number of votes cast at an election, and alleged that the relator received a specific number of those votes \u2014 being a majority \u2014 and \u201c was duly elected Held, that a demurrer to the complaint, upon the ground that it did not sufficiently allege that the relator received a majority of the said votes, was bad.\nCivil actioN, tried before Shipp, Judge, at February Term, 1887, of Chaven Superior Court, upon demurrer to the complaint.\nThe relator alleged that at the election held in November, 1886, in Craven county, there had been cast for Register of Deeds \u201c three thousand six hundred and twenty-nine votes, of which number nineteen hundred and fifty-eight were voted for relator, sixteen hundred and sixty-four for the defendant,\u201d and seven for another party, and that the relator \u201c was duly elected Register of Deeds at said election,\u201d but that the Board of County Canvassers illegally rejected certain returns and certified that the defendant had been duly elected; and that the defendant had been inducted into and was then exercising the functions of the office.\nThe defendant demurred, and assigned, among other grounds:\n\u201c Third. In that it appears from the complaint that, according to the returns of the precinct board of elections from .all the precincts in the county, the relator did not receive .a majority of the votes cast'at'said election.\u201d\nThere was judgment overruling the demurrer, from which the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. H. R. Bryan and M. H W. Stevenson, for the plaintiff.\nMessrs. W. W. Glark and G. M. Busbee, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 621,
  "last_page_order": 622
}