{
  "id": 8650701,
  "name": "MARY F. ANDERSON v. G. W. LOGAN and CARTER BURNETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Logan",
  "decision_date": "1888-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "474",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 N.C. 474"
    }
  ],
  "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": "92 N. C., 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693206
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones, 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ired., 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275272
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/33/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692795
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683052
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698293
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0471-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4222,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20758932277518882
    },
    "sha256": "5b0f015dfcf32858b8b173399eac56d4bdc94ae934e312de23124bb002ae7132",
    "simhash": "1:de9ba4cf69b808da",
    "word_count": 724
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:19:59.259917+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY F. ANDERSON v. G. W. LOGAN and CARTER BURNETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, 0. J.,\n(after stating the case). The correctness of this ruling alone need be considered in disposing of the defendants\u2019 appeal from the final judgment rendered for the-plaintiff.\nA deed cannot be used to support title to land until it is-proved and registered, and only when this is done does the legal estate pass. This has been repeatedly ruled. Hare v. Jernigan, 76 N. C., 471; Triplett v. Witherspoon, 74 N. C., 475; Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C., 342.\nIn Carrier v. Hampton, 11 Ired., 307, it was held, that proof \u2022of the death of the subscribing witness, and that the signature is in his handwriting, was insufficient, in not stating -on what ground his opinion was formed, nor by what means a knowledge of the deceased\u2019s handwriting had been acquired. This was overruled in Barwick v. Wood, 3 Jones, 306, and it was declared to be sufficient if the probate shows that -the witness declared, in general terms, that he was \u201c well acquainted with the handwriting,\u201d without showing how this 'knowledge was obtained; and this ruling is followed in Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. C., 382.\nWhere the evidence upon which the probate is adjudged is set out, and it appears to be essentially defective, the registration is void as such. Howell v. Ray, 92 N. C., 510.\nNow, it is manifest that there has been not merely an in-sufficient probate, but no probate at all, of the signature of the subscribing witnesses, an indispensable prerequisite.\nThe witness proves his competency to testify to the genuineness of the signatures, arid by supplying the evident \u2022'ellipsis \u201cwrite,\u201d after the words,\u201d-\u201chaving frequently seen \u25a0each of the witnesses,\u201d the means by which he became qualified so to testify, but he does not testify at all to the fact \u25a0that the signatures to the deed are in the handwriting of the parties.\nThere is, therefore, a total failure to prove the execution of -the deed, and the registration was unauthorized and void, .and the admission of the deed as evidence is error.\nThe judgment must therefore be reversed, and a venire de \u25a0novo awarded.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, 0. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. O. L. Harris, for the plaintiff.",
      "- Mr. D. G. Fmule, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY F. ANDERSON v. G. W. LOGAN and CARTER BURNETT.\nDeed \u2014 Probate\u2014Registration\u2014Evidence \u2014Handwriting\n1. No legal estate in lands will pass until the deed of conveyance has been duly proved and registered.\n2. Where it appears that the evidence upon which the probate was taken, is essentially defective, a registration thereon is void.\n3. It is not now necessary that the witnesses to prove the signatures of dead or non-resident witnesses to, or makers of, a deed, shall state the grounds upon which their opinion of the genuineness of the signatures is formed; but it is necessary that they shall depose that they are well acquainted with the handwriting of the subscribing persons, and that their signatures are genuine.\nThis is a civil action, and was tried before MacRae, J., at Pall Term, 1887, of Rutherford Superior Court.\nThe plaintiffs, in the necessary deduction of title to land, claimed in the action, and denied by the defendants, offered in evidence upon the trial before the jury a deed, purporting to have been executed by Yaney McBee, D. Reinhart and R. G. Twitty \u2014 the latter as executor of Joseph Bowen \u2014 to Mil-dren Bowen, with Jacob Michael and B. F. Logan as attesting witnesses, conveying the lot, and which had been registered upon the following certificate of probate:\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1 Rutheuford CouNty. j\nThis the 19th day of March, 1868, came before me, W. M.. Shipp, one of the Judges of the Superior Court of Law and Equity, A. G. Logan, who swore that he was well acquainted with the handwriting of Jacob Michael and B. F. Logan, the-subscribing witnesses to the within deed, having frequently seen each of the witnesses; that Jacob Michael is dead, and. B. F. Logan has been a non-resident of the State for many years. Let this deed and certificate be registered.\nW. M. Shipp, J. 8. O. L. and Equity.\nThe defendants objected to the admission of the deed, on. the ground of an insufficient proof of execution, not warranting registration. The objection was overruled, the deed-received and read in evidence, and exception taken thereto.-\nMr. J. O. L. Harris, for the plaintiff.\n- Mr. D. G. Fmule, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0474-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 504
}