{
  "id": 8654101,
  "name": "STATE v. W. B. BLANKENSHIP",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blankenship",
  "decision_date": "1895-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "808",
  "last_page": "809",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 N.C. 808"
    }
  ],
  "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., 833",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0833-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651750
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652231
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1187,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9223308708774197e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7331583810484704
    },
    "sha256": "5c2efe979ef20cfc7be5fa931939edd6b7fc2c7566c1c844d8be699287c7fbd6",
    "simhash": "1:b55fb7686b0d690e",
    "word_count": 206
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:58.395701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. W. B. BLANKENSHIP."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\n-The defendant asked certain instructions which were not given. The refusal is deemed excepted to, but, if the exception is not set out by the appellant in stating his case on appeal, it is waived. Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 56; Marshall v. Stine, 112 N. C., 697; Davis v. Duval, 112 N. C., 833. Indeed, no exception whatever appears to have been made, and, no error appearing upon the face of the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed. See numerous cases cited in Clark\u2019s Code, p. 582, subhead, \u201cWhere no errors are assigned.\u201d\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. J. M. George, Jr., for the defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. W. B. BLANKENSHIP.\nPractice \u2014 Appeal\u2014Exception not Noted in Case on Appeal \u2014Affirmance of Judgment.\nAlthough the refusal to give instructions asked for is deemed excepted to, yet, if the exception is not set out by appellant in his case on appeal, it is waived and in such case, no error appearing in the record, the judgment below will be affirmed.\nINDICTMENT for forcible entry and detainer, tried at June' Term of the Criminal Court for Madison county, before Ewart, J., and a jury. The defendant was convicted and appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. J. M. George, Jr., for the defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0808-01",
  "first_page_order": 836,
  "last_page_order": 837
}