{
  "id": 8649404,
  "name": "JOHN HOWELL et al. v. H. C. JONES et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "103",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 102"
    }
  ],
  "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": "94 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N. C., 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2044,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4174497116407364e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8784278542880299
    },
    "sha256": "f53970ea46dced6b26ebe2e2c4041096450d502bcaf605c2f3454bcb3575eb53",
    "simhash": "1:267834c7cd674730",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN HOWELL et al. v. H. C. JONES et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThere is no case on appeal settled by the Judge, nor signed by the parties, and nothing to show that any appeal was taken in open Court, nor any service of notice if appeal was taken out of Court. There is a \u201c case on appeal \u201d signed only by appellant\u2019s counsel, but as it does not appear that it was served on .appellee within the required time, nor indeed at all, it must be treated as a nullity. Peebles v. Braswell, 107 N. C., 68. The appeal would not be dismissed on this ground, as it may be there are errors on the face of the record proper, as want of jurisdiction, or complaint not stating a cause of action, and the proper motion and order would be to affirm the judgment. It further fails to appear, however, that an appeal was taken or notice of appeal given. In such case the appeal must be dismissed. M\u2019f\u2019g. Co. v. Simmons, 97 N. C., 89. In this last case, it is said: \u201c It does not appear (in the record) that an appeal was taken. It does not so appear in terms, nor is there any entry of record from which it may be inferred. It is not sufficient that the appellant intended to appeal, as perhaps he did, but it must appear of record that he did in fact appeal. This is essential, to make the appeal effective, and put this Court in relation with the Superior Court. The Code, \u00a7\u00a7 549, 550; Moore v. Vanderburg, 90 N. C., 10; Spence v. Tapscott, 93 N. C., 250; McCoy v. Lassiter, 94 N. C., 131; Brooks v. Austin, Ibid, 222.\u201d\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. A. Lockhart, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Montgomery & Crowell (by brief), for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN HOWELL et al. v. H. C. JONES et al.\nAppeal \u2014 \u201c Case \u201d \u2014 Practice in Supreme Court.\n1. It must appear in the record that an appeal was duly taken, otherwise it will be dismissed.\n2. If the record shows an appeal, but there is no case on appeal settled (in those cases where such \u201c case \u201d is required), the appeal will not be dismissed, but the judgment below may he affirmed on motion . of appellee, if there are no errors in the record proper.\nAppeal from StaNLY Superior Court.\nMr. J. A. Lockhart, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Montgomery & Crowell (by brief), for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 137
}