{
  "id": 8649235,
  "name": "J. W. GRANT, Adm'r d. b. n., etc. of MATHEW BRYANT v. PAUL HARRELL, Adm'r of A. J. HARRELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grant v. Harrell",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "79",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 78"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1711,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.97100885442092e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42213619404065644
    },
    "sha256": "5f39ad9e737ce4dbaa9b1123714632e190d2943f5545e55067c1509fd071aef6",
    "simhash": "1:55c8bfe15a612772",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. GRANT, Adm\u2019r d. b. n., etc. of MATHEW BRYANT v. PAUL HARRELL, Adm\u2019r of A. J. HARRELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, C. J.:\nIn view of a multitude of decisions of this Court, it is too clear to admit of serious question that the Court properly dismissed the action upon the ground that the plaintiffs\u2019 remedy is by a motion in the cause. Carter v. Rountree, decided at this term.\nDEFENDANTS APPEAL.\nThe defendant\u2019s appeal is disposed of by what we have said in plaintiffs\u2019 appeal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. T. W. Mason and B. B. Peebles (by brief), for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. R. 0. Burton, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. GRANT, Adm\u2019r d. b. n., etc. of MATHEW BRYANT v. PAUL HARRELL, Adm\u2019r of A. J. HARRELL.\nMotion in the Cause \u2014 Final Judgment \u2014 Failure to Serve Process-\nMotion in the cause, and not a new action, is the remedy for relief against a final judgment in a special proceeding, for an alleged failure to serve summons.\nThis is a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., at Spring Term, 1891, of Northampton Superior Court.\nIn a special proceeding, specified in the complaint in this action, it appears, by the return of the summons in that proceeding, that the same was duly served upon the defendants therein named; whereas, in fact, as the plaintiffs allege, that summons never was served. In that special proceeding a final judgment was entered, of which the plaintiffs complain, and the purpose of this action is to have the same set aside and declared void, upon the ground that the summons mentioned was never served, and hence the Court had no jurisdiction of the parties named therein as defendants. The Court below, \u201c being of opinion that a motion in the cause is the proper remedy for the plaintiffs\u2019 alleged grievance,\u201d gave judgment dismissing the action, and the plaintiffs, having excepted, appealed to this Court\nMessrs. T. W. Mason and B. B. Peebles (by brief), for plaintiff.\nMr. R. 0. Burton, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 113
}