{
  "id": 8652155,
  "name": "H. C. WHITEHURST v. ISRAEL PETTIPHER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitehurst v. Pettipher",
  "decision_date": "1890-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 N.C. 39"
    }
  ],
  "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": "104 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651481
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 2010,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0309279358028265e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7465890868540984
    },
    "sha256": "05cf6e246fe323c8c383e71dba31ee0f01277149a444e96c8954bc0512bb8d14",
    "simhash": "1:cfe3b0402ad7b79b",
    "word_count": 360
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:46.302543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. C. WHITEHURST v. ISRAEL PETTIPHER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Claek, J.:\nWhen this case was reached on the regular call of the docket, it appeared that the printed copies of the record, required by Rule 28 of the Rules of this Court, had not been filed. Thereupon, the appeal was dismissed.\nThe appellant, on five days\u2019 notice of his motion, required by Rule 29, seeks now to have the appeal reinstated on the docket. As stated by the Court in Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400, the rule requiring printed copies of certain pafts of the record is a very reasonable one, and has been rendered necessary for the more careful and prompt consideration of causes by the steadily increasing volume of business brought to this Court. The rule will be strictly adhered to. Though an appeal dismissed for failure to print the record in the cases, and to the extent designated, will, in a proper case, be reinstated, on motion, after giving the required notice, this will only be done upon good cause shown.\nIn the present case, the appellant filed an affidavit, setting out that the record was printed as required, and that the requisite number of copies was not filed in time, by reason\u2019 of conversations with the opposite counsel below, which led him to understand that the appeal would be passed over when reached and not called for argument at this term. This is not denied, and makes out a case which entitles the appellant to have his appeal reinstated, and it is so ordered.\nMotion allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Claek, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. W Clark, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. T. C. Fuller and George II. Snow, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. C. WHITEHURST v. ISRAEL PETTIPHER et al.\nAppeal Reinstated\u2014 When.\nWhen, an appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which requires a specified number of printed copies of the statement of the case on appeal to be filed, a reinstatement of the case on motion is not a matter of course, but will only be allowed on good cause shown. Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400, cited and approved.\nMotion to reinstate case on docket.\nMr. W. W Clark, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. T. C. Fuller and George II. Snow, for defendants.\nHead-note by Clark, J."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}