{
  "id": 11273574,
  "name": "J. M. MITCHELL v. PATSY TEDDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. Tedder",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 358"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2979,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.467064633531609e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9219191929722543
    },
    "sha256": "6d0a331cc1899bcd055e1dae177bd6cef4c755f9ba4b16bcea578e14bf7e3adc",
    "simhash": "1:cfeaae2f0f83258c",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. MITCHELL v. PATSY TEDDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe appellant served his statement of case on appeal, to which the appellee filed numerous exceptions. The Judge sustained all of the appellee\u2019s exceptions, and directed that the \u201c case \u201d be redrafted by incorporating the exceptions sustained and striking out the parts of the appellant\u2019s case which this made necessary. This has not been done. The transcript sent up contains merely the appellant\u2019s case, together with the appellee\u2019s exceptions and the order of the Judge sustaining the exceptions. The appeal is not in a condition to be intelligently presented and argued. There is, indeed, in contemplation of law, no \u201c case settled on appeal.\u201d The Court might, therefore, well affirm the judgment below, as there appear to be no errors upon the face of the record proper.. The appellee, however, has not moved the Court to affirm the judgment, and in the present case the Court will not do so ex mero motu. Such loose practice, however, will not be tolerated.\nThe case will be remanded, that the appellant may have an opportunity to comply with the order of the Judge by redrafting and reforming the \u201c case on appeal\u201d in conformity with the amendments and alterations required by the order.\nThe transcript should not be cumbered with appellant\u2019s statement of case, defendant\u2019s exceptions thereto, and the Judge\u2019s order. These are minutise of the \u201csettlement,\u201d with which this Court has nothing to do. It has often held that it will not go behind the \u201ccase settled.\u201d Had the Judge died after passing upon the exceptions, and before the \u201c case\u201d had been reformed as ordered by him, and counsel could not agree upon the redraft, then, ex necessitate, it may be that these matters should be sent up that this Court might pass upon the scope and effect of the order; but here,though the Judge has gone out of office, it is still made his duty to settle the case by the last paragraph of The Code, \u00a7 550. The redrafted case should be sent to him by the appellant for signature, and, when signed and settled by him, it will be sent up as the transcript of the \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d\nPer Curiam. Remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. D. M. Fur dies, (by brief), for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. MITCHELL v. PATSY TEDDER.\nCase on Appeal \u2014 Practice.\nWhen, the Judge sustains exceptions filed by appellee to appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal, and directs the case thus modified to be redrafted and sent up, it is the duty of the appellant to have the case redrafted and presented to the Judge for signature. When he does not do this, but merely sends up his statement of case, together with appellee\u2019s exceptions and the order of the Judge, there is no \u201ccase settled on appeal,\u201d and the Court (if there are no errors on the face of the record proper) may, on motion of appellee, or ex mero motil, either affirm the judgment or remand the case.\nAppeal by defendant from Gilmer, J., at Fall Term, 1889, of Wilkes Superior Court.\nThe facts appear in the opinion.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nMr. D. M. Fur dies, (by brief), for defendant.\nHead-notes by Clark, J."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 395
}