{
  "id": 8655307,
  "name": "H. Z. SHERRILL v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sherrill v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "655",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. 654"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 N. C., 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649334
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0571-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.813390346993004e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45765486713704157
    },
    "sha256": "a3cc45ef9f7c18f58d49486e79759e9fd64dc616f757352f7d37df59d2348cf2",
    "simhash": "1:506d44bab29b6543",
    "word_count": 253
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:38.706573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. Z. SHERRILL v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clarii, J.:\nThe case on appeal was settled by the Judge. The defendant files an affidavit for certiorari on the ground that the word \u201cnot\u201d was b3r inadvertence left out in an important part of the testimony and appends a telegram from the Judge, to that effect, expressing his readiness to make the correction. This complies with the requirements laid down in the authorities. Boyer v. Teague, 106 N. C., 571; Bank v. Bridgers, 114 N. C., 107. That the hearing might not be delayed, an instanter certiorari was ordered to issue and tbe cause placed at tbe end of tbe District to be called in its order on tbe second call of the docket for the week. Considering tbe nature of the correction asked, on suggestion from tbe Court, the argument is proceeded with on tbe first call, subject to any change which may be made in the record by the return to the certiorari, the decision being withheld till such return is made. Motion Allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clarii, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. L. G. Caldwell and Burwell, Walker c& Gansler, for plaintiff.",
      "Mesers. Jones c& Tillett, for defendant (petitioner)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. Z. SHERRILL v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\nPractice \u2014 Certiorari\u2014Statement by Trial Judge \u2014 Supplying Omission in Testimony.\nWhere the affidavit in an application for a certiorari showed that the word \u201cnot\u201d was omitted in an important part of the testimony and was accompanied hy a telegram from the Trial Judge to the same effect and expressing his readiness to supply the omission, the writ will he granted.\nMessrs. L. G. Caldwell and Burwell, Walker c& Gansler, for plaintiff.\nMesers. Jones c& Tillett, for defendant (petitioner)."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 682,
  "last_page_order": 683
}