{
  "id": 8651069,
  "name": "JOHN L. HINTON v. H. F. GREENLEAF et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hinton v. Greenleaf",
  "decision_date": "1894-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "5",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. 5"
    }
  ],
  "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": "107 N. C., 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0358-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2753,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2651175224029204e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6134079631669646
    },
    "sha256": "e0e4e1845257ad7cd66dc6f85839c20d7df5bdb5bf9eb634cd215ca3faa9c467",
    "simhash": "1:832c0a5433e54e47",
    "word_count": 466
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN L. HINTON v. H. F. GREENLEAF et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MacRae, J.\nThere is, in contemplation of law, no \u201ccase settled on appeal.\u201d And we might dismiss the appeal for want of a case. Mitchell v. Tedder, 107 N. C., 358. We prefer, however, that the matter should be disposed of upon its merits, and will direct that it be remanded, in order that the case on appeal may be redrafted, according to the order of his Honor below. This is necessary, because the principal point before us was an objection to his Honor\u2019s charge upon the presumption of law and burden of proof. In the statement of the case presented by the appellant the exception is stated to the charge of his Honor, setting out the language objected to. In the exceptions of appellee the whole of his Honor\u2019s charge* is set out. This differs from that portion objected to by appellant. We are uncertain whether his Honor intended that the charge, as stated by appellant, was to be amended by the addition of that stated in appellee\u2019s exception as the Judge\u2019s charge, or whether the amendment was to be inserted in place of that set out in the appellant\u2019s statement. What the presiding Judge did instruct the jury upon the point in question will, of course, have an important bearing upon the determination of the question involved in the appeal. Remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MacRae, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. W. J. Griffin and Pruden & Vann, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Grandy & Aydlett, for defendants (appellants)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN L. HINTON v. H. F. GREENLEAF et al.\nPractice \u2014 Case on Appeal \u2014 Remand Instead of Dismissal.\nWhen the Judge below allowed amendments proposed by the appellee to a statement of the case on appeal served by the appellant, and ordered \u201cthat the case on appeal be as stated by the defendant, with said amendments incorporated therein,\u201d and the Clerk sent up the appellants\u2019 statement, the appellee\u2019s exceptions and the Judge\u2019s order sustaining the exceptions: Held, that, although in contemplation of law there is no \u201c case settled on appeal,\u201d and a motion to dismiss might be allowed, it is preferable to remand the case, to be redrafted, according to the Judge\u2019s order, so that the matter may be disposed of on its merits.\nThis was a civil actioN, tried before Broten, J., and a jury, at Special Term, 1894, of Pasquotank Superior Court. In this Court the plaintiff's counsel moved to dismiss the appeal for want of a \u201c case.\u201d\nIt appears that the appellant served his statement of the case on appeal, the appellee filed exceptions thereto, the case was settled by the Judge, allowing the amendments proposed by the appellee, and ordering \u201c that the case on appeal be as stated by the defendant, with said five amendments incorporated therein.\u201d Thereupon, the Clerk sent up the appellants\u2019 statement, the appellee\u2019s exceptions, and the Judge\u2019s order sustaining the' exceptions.\nMessrs. W. J. Griffin and Pruden & Vann, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Grandy & Aydlett, for defendants (appellants)."
  },
  "file_name": "0005-01",
  "first_page_order": 25,
  "last_page_order": 26
}