{
  "id": 8651073,
  "name": "J. W. PIPKIN v. J. A. GREEN, Sheriff",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pipkin v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1893-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "355",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.C. 355"
    }
  ],
  "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": "106 N. C., 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650975
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651627
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651123
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 2033,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.797993935060355e-07,
      "percentile": 0.715953323919657
    },
    "sha256": "5e8eafaa1ac2975b017d997c0e4508b1402dfbf89df10ebe992dea0da168afb5",
    "simhash": "1:86a9c2948cfa9e66",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:34.318959+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. PIPKIN v. J. A. GREEN, Sheriff."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThis is a motion made at September Term, 1892, to re-instate the appeal which had been dismissed at February Term, 1892 (110 N C., 462), for failure to print, and also for failure to docket at the proper Term. The motion to re-instate, when the dismissal is for failure to print, must be made at the same Term (Rule 30 of the Supreme Court), and will only then be allowed \u201cfor good cause shown.\u201d The mo.tion, therefore, comes too late, and must be denied.\nThe motion, indeed, does not show good cause. Stephens v. Koonce, 106 N. C., 255, is in point. Furthermore, notice of the motion to re-instate was not given as required by Rule 30.\nThis renders it unnecessary to consider the other ground of dismissal \u2014 for failure to docket appeal at the next Term of this Court after the trial below. We will note, however, that if this was caused by the delay of the Judge to settle the case in time, the appellant should have docketed the record proper and have asked for a certiorari ior the \u201ccase\u201d at such first Term thereafter. Pitman v. Kimberly, 92 N. C., 562 ; Porter v. Railroad, 106 N. C., 478. Besides, as a motion to re-instate the appeal dismissed on this ground, it is fatally defective for failure to show that the delay to docket the appeal was without laches on the part of the appellant. Simmons v. Andrews, 106 N. C., 201.\nMotion Denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. IF. E. Murchison, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. E. 0. Smith, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. PIPKIN v. J. A. GREEN, Sheriff.\nDismissal of Appeal \u2014 Ee-instatement\u2014Laches.\n1. A motion to re-instate an appeal dismissed for failure to print must be made at the same Term (Pule 30 of the Supremo Court), and will only then be allowed for good cause shown.\n2. A motion to re-instate an appeal dismissed for failure to docket the record at the first Term of this Court after the trial below, is' fatally defective where it does not show that the delay was without laches on the part of the appellant.\nTliis was a MOTION of the plaintiff to re-instate the appeal which had been previously dismissed.\nMr. IF. E. Murchison, for plaintiff.\nMr. E. 0. Smith, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0355-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 388
}