{
  "id": 8550054,
  "name": "JOHN HENRY BARKER v. CLAYTON HARRINGTON HICKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barker v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1971-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7119SC518",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2364,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "a79be22411b2b4b3d8e2997b749eeb0a7bc5e3e640afc4da9baf922ea3f34810",
    "simhash": "1:ac2efc6875e856a2",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN HENRY BARKER v. CLAYTON HARRINGTON HICKS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nChatham County is the proper county for the trial of this action. G.S. 1-82. Plaintiff contends that the defendant waived his right to have trial conducted in the proper county. Defendant was served with summons and complaint on 29 April 1970. By letter dated 8 May 1970 H. F. Seawell, Jr., Esquire wrote the clerk of superior court of Randolph County and requested \u201can extension of time in which to file Answer\u201d and tendered an order to this effect, omitting the proposed time of extension. On 12 May 1970 Judge Long signed an order providing that the time within which defendant might answer was thereby \u201cextended for twenty days to and including the 18th day of May, 1970.\u201d The statutory time for filing answer did not expire until 29 May 1970. On 20 May 1970 defendant\u2019s present counsel filed a motion for removal of the action to Chatham County. This motion was filed well within the period allowed for filing answer. G.S. 1-88 provides that unless defendant demands transfer \u201cbefore the time of answering expires\u201d the action may be tried in the county where suit is filed. Rule 12(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the defense of improper venue is one that may be raised by motion or in the responsive pleadings, at the option of the pleader. We hold that under the circumstances of this case the court could properly order the case transferred to Chatham County.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Brock and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Barber, Holmes and Barber by Wade Barber, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN HENRY BARKER v. CLAYTON HARRINGTON HICKS\nNo. 7119SC518\n(Filed 15 September 1971)\nVenue \u00a7 7\u2014 removal to the county of the parties\u2019 residence\nTrial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motion to transfer a personal injury action to the county in which both plaintiff and defendant resided, where the motion was made within the period allowed for filing answer. G.S. 1-82; G.S. 1-83.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gambill, Judge, 5 April 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action seeking to recover damages allegedly sustained by reason of the negligence of defendant. Suit was filed in Randolph County. Plaintiff and defendant are residents of Chatham County. Plaintiff appealed from an order removing the action to the Superior Court of Chatham County.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff appellant.\nBarber, Holmes and Barber by Wade Barber, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 434
}