{
  "id": 8649791,
  "name": "HERMAN R. BALTZER v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baltzer v. State",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "187",
  "last_page": "188",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 187"
    }
  ],
  "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., 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651172
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693964
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651172
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0265-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1545,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2075806350099948
    },
    "sha256": "ee985119ba5c4c0967e9dedf4d839a982b6c05285ee12639b9a01667aafffb0f",
    "simhash": "1:3e80a4d3f1c3902d",
    "word_count": 266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERMAN R. BALTZER v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, C. J.:\nWe cannot hesitate to decide that this Court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. It plainly comes within what was said in Horne v. The State, 84 N. C., 362, and Baltzer v. The State, 104 N. C., 265, cases very thoroughly argued, and decided by the Court, after much earnest consideration. We are called upon to overrule those cases and proceed to consider the case upon its merits, and determine the important questions presented by the pleadings. Nothing appears from the brief of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, nor can we conceive of any adequate reason that ought to prompt us to do so. For the reasons sufficiently stated in the cases cited supra, the motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the action must be allowed.\nAction dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. E. C. Smith, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. Theo. F. Davidson, Attorney-General; for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERMAN R. BALTZER v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.\nAction Against the State \u2014 Jurisdiction.\nThe decision of this Court in the case of Baltzer and Taalcs v. The State of North Carolina, 104 N. C., 265, in respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over actions of this character, is reaffirmed.\nThis is an ORIGINAL action, instituted in the Supreme Court, under Art. 4, \u00a7 9 of the Constitution,, to recover the amount due upon the coupons of a certain alleged bond of the State of North Carolina, purporting to have been issued in aid of the Chatham Railroad Company, under an ordinance of the Convention of North Carolina, ratified 11th March, 1868.\nMr. E. C. Smith, for plaintiff.\nMr. Theo. F. Davidson, Attorney-General; for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0187-01",
  "first_page_order": 221,
  "last_page_order": 222
}