{
  "id": 11273944,
  "name": "H. C. HUNT v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hunt v. Richmond & Danville Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "447",
  "last_page": "449",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 447"
    }
  ],
  "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": "93 N. C., 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 924",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3726,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.620672357195734e-07,
      "percentile": 0.687193925205678
    },
    "sha256": "a44dd92e7132671a1d93d2473e736ffcc1d55036b7a4dd8b73b91a3577a32715",
    "simhash": "1:77e1ecad5dd1c786",
    "word_count": 658
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. C. HUNT v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nRule 28 (104 N. C., 924) provides: \u201cFifteen copies of so much and such parts of the record as may be necessary to a proper understanding of the exceptions and grounds of error assigned as appear in the record in each civil action shall be printed.\u201d And Rule 29 provides that \u201c such printed matter shall consist of the statement of the case on appeal and of the exceptions appearing in the record to be reviewed by the Court, or, in case of a demurrer, of such demurrer and the pleadings to which it is entered.\u201d Rule 30 provides that, if these rules are not complied with by the time the case is reached in its order for argument, the appeal shall, on motion of the appellee, be dismissed.\nThese rules were adopted six. years ago. The absolute necessity of this regulation, its moderateness in not requiring the whole transcript, but only the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d usually to be printed, and in exempting State cases and pauper appeals from its application, and the fixed intention of the Court to strictly enforce it, have been repeatedly affirmed. Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400, and in many other cases. In Witt v. Long, 93 N. C., 388, the Court stated that it would treat a mere colorable compliance with the rule as a failure to observe it.\nIn practice, the printing of the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d and (when necessary) of such other parts of the record as require consideration on the argument, has been found almost as convenient to counsel as necessary to the Court. It is a matter of surprise, therefore, that, in any case, intelligent counsel should permit their clients to incur the expense of sending up the transcript of the record, and of paying the costs of this Court, when they must know that if the record is not printed the appeal must be dismissed.\nIn the present case there is not even a colorable compliance The \u201ccase on appeal\u201d is not printed at all. Appellant\u2019s counsel favors us with a full printed brief of his argument, and in it inserts a very brief synopsis of what he deems the substance of a rather long \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d and adds, \u201csee case stated by the Judge for a full statement.\u201d Even the ticket, on the wording of which the controversy turned in the Court below, and which, is made a part of the \u201c case,\u201d is not printed. The counsel for the appellee will not accept appellant\u2019s synopsis as a substitute for the case as stated by the Judge, nor will the Court. Printed briefs, while not required, are always desirable, and are appreciated by the Court, but they cannot be accepted in lieu of a printed \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d The motion of appellee to dismiss must be allowed.\nThere can be no excuse for any appellant being ignorant of the rule as to printing the \u201c case on appeal,\u201d seeing the length of time it has been adopted, and the many decisions enforcing it. If not prepared or inclined to comply with it, counsel will save unnecessary expenditure by refraining from sending up appeals which must be dismissed at the costs of their clients.\nPer Curiam. Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. S V. Pickens (by brief), for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. D. Schenck and F. Id. Busbee, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. C. HUNT v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD CO.\nAppeal Dismissed \u2014 Printing Record \u2014 Rules 28,29 and 80.\nThe necessity of the rule requiring the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d to be printed has been often pointed out. Unless appellants observe this requirement, it will save them needless expenditure to refrain from sending up appeals which can only be dismissed at their costs.\nThis was a Civil action, tried before Mevrimon, J., at Fall Term, 1890, of Henderson Superior Court.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the Court intimated an opinion that the plaintiff could not recover. Whereupon, he took a nonsuit, and appealed.\nMr. S V. Pickens (by brief), for plaintiff.\nMessrs. D. Schenck and F. Id. Busbee, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0447-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 485
}