{
  "id": 8655040,
  "name": "W. A. DUNN, Receiver of CLINTON LOAN ASSOCIATION v. D. D. UNDERWOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunn v. Underwood",
  "decision_date": "1895-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "525",
  "last_page": "526",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. 525"
    }
  ],
  "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": "112 N. C., 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649274
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651063
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0235-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.388194195985048e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6419735281863923
    },
    "sha256": "88fbcf9b51b0d40df1bccb4a063e7878474beaf3e7d3ecde58575468bb68d143",
    "simhash": "1:3c2e81cd237484c8",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:38.706573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. DUNN, Receiver of CLINTON LOAN ASSOCIATION v. D. D. UNDERWOOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, J.:\nThe appeal was dismissed at last Term for ailure to print the record. The appellant moved at the sanie Term to reinstate, as required by rule 30. The reason assigned was that the neglect to print was the negligence of counsel. The Court has repeatedly held that having the record printed requires no legal skill, and that, if an appellant entrusts it to counsel, his negligence in such regard is the negligence of an agent merely, not that of .counsel. Griffin v. Nelson, 106 N. C., 235; Stephens v. Koonce, Ibid, 255; Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N. C., 83; Turner v. Tate, 112 N. C., 457; Neal v. Land Co., Ibid, 841.\nAs the late Chief Justice PearsoN expressed it: \u201c There is no use in having a scribe unless you cut up to it.\u201d A rule so repeatedly enunciated must be deemed settled. In Edwards v. Henderson, supra, the Court observed : \u201c To permit an appellant to obtain a delay of six months by his negligence in not complying with this requirement would convert a rule, which was adopted as a means for the speedier and better consideration of causes, into a fruitful source of delay. Rather than that, appellees would prefer to argue their causes without the printed record, which the Court in justice to itself and to litigants cannot.permit. Appellants might as well fail to send up the transcript as not to have it in a condition to be heard by failing to have the \u2018 case and exceptions printed.\u2019 \u201d\nIndeed, in the present case, the appellee agreed that, notwithstanding the dismissal, the case might be reinstated if submitted on printed briefs, under Rule 10, so as to be disposed of at last Term. This offer the appellant accepted, but was again negligent and failed to do so during that Term.\nIt is too late to make the motion anew to reinstate at this Term. Rule 30. Appellees have rights, though appellants are singular]}' prone to forget it, and among them is the right guaranteed by Magna Charta to all, that justice shall \u201cneither be denied nor delayed.\u201d Const. of N. C., Art. 1, Sec. 35. A delay of justice is often a denial of justice.\nMotion Denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Air. R. 0. Burton, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. John D. Herr, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. DUNN, Receiver of CLINTON LOAN ASSOCIATION v. D. D. UNDERWOOD.\nPractice \u2014 Appeal\u2014Failure to Print Record, \u2014 Dismissal \u2014Negligence of Counsel \u2014 Motion to Reinstate.\nThe printing of a record on appeal as required by Rule 30, requires, no legal skill and, hence, the negligence of counsel is no excuse for the failure to print and where an appeal has been dismissed for such failure a motion to reinstate will not be allowed.\nThis was an aotioN to reinstate, an appeal, dismissed on motion of appellee for failure of appellant to print the record. The grounds of the motion appear in the opinion of Associate Justice Clare:.\nAir. R. 0. Burton, for plaintiff.\nMr. John D. Herr, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0525-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 554
}