{
  "id": 8653328,
  "name": "O. S. CAUSEY v. EMPIRE PLAID MILLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Causey v. Empire Plaid Mills",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "395",
  "last_page": "396",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 395"
    }
  ],
  "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": "117 N. C., 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653503
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0489-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2076163513780147
    },
    "sha256": "16c8be8e10807f1ffdd16a3dea8dc4d80cff49de97584636462e5ccb550c027b",
    "simhash": "1:4e8fafd39dd4f484",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. S. CAUSEY v. EMPIRE PLAID MILLS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Montgomery, J.:\nThe appeal was dismissed for a failure on the part of the appellant to comply with Rule 28. The printing was done before the amendment, requiring the .judgment in all cases to be printed, was made the rule. Before the amendment, it would not have been necessary to print, as a part of the case on appeal, a judgment like the one in this case. The rule required the printing \u201c of so much and such parts of the record as may be necessary \u2019to a proper understanding of the exceptions and grounds \u25a0of error assigned.\u201d Upon the response of the jury that the plaintiff was not the owner and entitled to the possession \u25a0of the property claimed in the complaint, there was a simple judgment that the plaintiff take 3)othing by his writ \u25a0and be taxed with the costs of the action. To determine the matter raised on the appeal, the inspection of the judgment would not be necessary. In Wiley v. Mining Go., 117 N. C., 489, the judgment was such a one as was required to be printed before Rule 28 was amended. It \u25a0covered five pages of manuscript, and one of the exceptions \u25a0of the appellant read, \u201c Eor that the said report and judgment based thereon do not properly regard the rights of the minority stockholders ; for other reasons appearing on 'the face of said judgment.\u201d\nEor the reasons above set forth, the petition of the appellant in this case to reinstate the appeal is granted.\nAppeal Granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Montgomery, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. L. M. Scott and Shaw <& Scales, for plaintiff' (appellant).",
      "Messrs. Fuller, Winston dc Fuller, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. S. CAUSEY v. EMPIRE PLAID MILLS.\nPractice \u2014 Appeal\u2014Dismissal for Failure to Print Judg-ment \u2014 Reinstatement.\nRule of Court No. 28, requiring' the judgment to be printed in every appeal, will not be enforced when the record wag; printed before its adoption, and in a case where the judgment appealed from was simply that plaintiff take nothing by-his writ.\nMotioN to REINSTATE appeal, dismissed for failure to,, print the judgment below as apart of the record.\nMessrs. L. M. Scott and Shaw <& Scales, for plaintiff' (appellant).\nMessrs. Fuller, Winston dc Fuller, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0395-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}