Case Name: JOHN BURGIN v. GEORGE DOUGHERTY, and ROBERT COLEMAN, Minor, by D. W. HARRISON, Guardian Ad Litem
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1929-12-11
Citations: 198 N.C. 813
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN BURGIN v. GEORGE DOUGHERTY, and ROBERT COLEMAN, Minor, by D. W. HARRISON, Guardian Ad Litem.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 198
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
JOHN BURGIN v. GEORGE DOUGHERTY, and ROBERT COLEMAN, Minor, by D. W. HARRISON, Guardian Ad Litem.
(Filed 11 December, 1929.)
Appeal by defendant, Dougherty, from Johnson, Special Judge, at June Term, 1929, of Buncombe. No error.
J. Scroop Styles for plaintiff.
Zeb. F. Guriis for defendant Dougherty.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a proceeding for tbe partition of real estate. Tbe plaintiff alleges, and it is not denied, tbat Spencer Burgin was tbe owner in fee of tbe land in controversy. He died leaving surviving him bis widow, Jane Burgin, who has a dower interest in tbe land, and tbe plaintiff and bis (Spencer's) daughter, Mary Burgin Dougherty. On 10 June, 1920, Mary Burgin Dougherty and her husband, George Dougherty, tbe appellant, legally adopted tbe defendant Eobert Franklin Coleman as their child and heir at law. Mary Burgin Dougherty died leaving no child of her own, and it is alleged tbat Eobert Franklin Coleman is her only heir. Answers were duly filed by the defendants and upon tbe trial only one issue was submitted to tbe jury, and in response it was found that tbe plaintiff is tbe owner and entitled to a one-half undivided interest in and to tbe land described in tbe complaint. Thereupon judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant Dougherty excepted and appealed.
We bave examined all tbe exceptions of tbe appellant and are of opinion tbat tbe case has been tried in substantial compliance with tbe law. The only exceptions wbicb require special notice are those relating to tbe exclusion of evidence offered by tbe appellant tending to show general reputation in the community as to tbe maternity of tbe plaintiff. This evidence was rejected on tbe ground tbat such relation must be established by evidence tending to show reputation in tbe family of the parties concerned. Ashe v. Pettiford, 177 N. C., 132; Turner v. Battle, 175 N. C., 219; Erwin v. Bailey, 123 N. C., 628. See, also, Jelser v. White, 183 N. C., 126. We are of opinion that the exceptions to the instruction given the jury are not such as to require another trial.
No error.