{
  "id": 8651264,
  "name": "AARON A. WISEMAN v. COMMISSIONERS of MITCHELL COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wiseman v. Commissioners of Mitchell County",
  "decision_date": "1889-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "330",
  "last_page": "331",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 N.C. 330"
    }
  ],
  "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": "102 N. C., 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650019
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/102/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273463
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0291-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2505,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.5397567860133557e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8847508097962468
    },
    "sha256": "ff0f95c3b2d230bfbb7b0d8a7975fbd905924aa1e5be3186f4f897f3414b5f9c",
    "simhash": "1:2c7546cc5a6a2fbb",
    "word_count": 437
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:43.175763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AARON A. WISEMAN v. COMMISSIONERS of MITCHELL COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThis appeal was docketed 17th J.uly, 1887. It has not been prosecuted in this Court. Rule 15 of the Rules of this Court provides, among other things, as follows: \u201c But cases not prosecuted for two terms shall, when reached in order after the second term, be dismissed at the costs of the appellant, unless the same for some sufficient cause shall be continued,\u201d with a proviso that the appellant may move, not later than the call of the district at the next term, to reinstate, on notice to the appellee, and showing sufficient cause.\nNo cause for a continuance has been shown. It is the duty of appellants to prosecute their appeals in this Court promptly, as the law requires. When they fail to do so the appellee has the right to have the appeal dismissed, so that he may have the benefit of his judgment and be saved the expense and annoyance of protracted and unnecessary litigation. Brantly v. Jordan, 92 N. C., 291. Or if the appellee does not feel enough interest to make such motion, the Court may ex mero motu dismiss the appeal, that its docket be not cumbered with cases in which no one has any concern.\nIn a recent case, Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 487, the present Chief Justice called attention to the mistaken impression, which seemed somewhat to prevail, that the Rules of the Court are \u201c merely directory and to be ignored, disregarded and suspended almost as a matter of course.\u201d He points out that they are deemed essential to the protection of the rights of litigants and the due administration of justice and will be observed and enforced.\nAppeal dismissed.\nNote.\u2014Young v. Young and Fisher v. Mining Co., from Iredell County, were dismissed for the same reason.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. T. A. Love, for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AARON A. WISEMAN v. COMMISSIONERS of MITCHELL COUNTY.\nDismissal of Appeals \u2014 Rules of Court.\n1. Failure to prosecute an appeal for two terms, is sufficient ground for dismissal, unless, for sufficient cause shown, the case shall be continued. Motion to reinstate, upon notice, may be heard not later than the next term.\n2.. Rules of this Court are not merely directory ; it is the duty of appellant to prosecute his appeal according to the rules.\nThis was an Action for a mandamus, tried before MacRae, \u2018J., at the Spring Term, 1887, of Mitchell Superior Court, upon complaint and answer and facts agreed.\nMotion was denied and plaintiff adjudged to pay the costs. Plaintiff appealed\nThe facts are sufficiently set out in the opinion of the Court.\nMr. T. A. Love, for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0330-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 363
}