{
  "id": 8653503,
  "name": "WILEY & BALLARD, Trustees of B. L. Duke v. BESSEMER CITY MINING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wiley v. Bessemer City Mining Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 N.C. 489"
    }
  ],
  "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": "115 N. C., 843",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "844"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651149
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273944
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 2928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.983524903050841e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9356692224141253
    },
    "sha256": "88557b3b5f72736026f58e101d170aade483a8f7e751e325f06f9d1c9ed8482c",
    "simhash": "1:9faaa4eb26c97127",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:58.395701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILEY & BALLARD, Trustees of B. L. Duke v. BESSEMER CITY MINING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Claek, J.:\nRule 28 requires tbe printing \u201cof so much and such parts of tbe record as may be necessary to a proper understanding of tbe exceptions and grounds of error assigned.\u201d Tbe power of tbe Court to make sucb rule, and tbe necessity for it, are stated in Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400; Hunt v. Railroad, 107 N. C., 447, and numerous other cases. To prevent any possible misconception of tbe rule, it was enlarged and made more specific in 115 N. C., pp. 843-844.\nWhen this case was reached on tbe regular call of tbe docket, the appellant did not aid us by supporting his grounds of appeal, either by oral argument or brief filed, and the appellee moved to dismiss because tbe record is not printed as fully as necessary for the purposes of an argument. Looking into the record we find that there has not been a satisfactory compliance with the rule (28) as to printing. \"Without referring to other exceptions and other omissions in the printed record, it is sufficient to quote the 9th exception, \u201cFor that the said report and judgment based thereon do not properly guard the rights of the minority stockholders; For other reasons appearing on the face of said judgment.\u201d This renders the careful consideration of said judgment necessary, and it should have been printed. The judgment covers five pages in manuscript, and it is not in compliance with our rules to expect that the single copy of that judgment shall be considered by the five members of the Court, as could be readily done if printed. The neglect of this rule has been so often called to the attention of appellants, and the intention of the Court to adhere t'o it has been so frequently expressed, that it is proper now to enforce the rule and entirely unne essary to give further warning that we intend to do so. Paine v. Cureton, 114 N. C., 606; Carter v. Long, 116 N. C., 46; Dunn v. Underwood, Ibid, 525. The printing was insufficient in other particulars, but this is enough to show a substantial non-campliance.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Claek, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Fuller, Winston c& Fuller, for appellants.",
      "Mr. W. A. Guthrie, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILEY & BALLARD, Trustees of B. L. Duke v. BESSEMER CITY MINING COMPANY.\nPractice \u2014 Appeal\u2014Dismissal\u2014Rules of Court \u2014 Failure to Print Essential parts of Record.\nWhere, on appeal, an exception is that the judgment does not properly guard the rights of minority stockholders of a company, \u201cand for other reasons appearing on the face of the judgment,\u201d and no printed copy of the judgment accompanies the record, the appeal will be dismissed under Rule 28 (115 N. C., 843, 844), which requires so much, and such parts, of the record to be printed as may be necessary to a proper understanding of the exceptions.\nCivil actioN, beard before Tvmherlahe, J., at E'all Term, 1895, of GastoN Superior Court. Tbe plaintiff appealed. In tbis Court tbe defendant moved to dismiss for failure of appellant to print necessary parts of tbe record.\nMessrs. Fuller, Winston c& Fuller, for appellants.\nMr. W. A. Guthrie, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 518
}