{
  "id": 8655846,
  "name": "VAN BROWN v. JOHN HOUSE, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. House",
  "decision_date": "1896-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. 622"
    }
  ],
  "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": "105 N. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652350
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 872",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0872-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689829
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0562-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 2176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.025694114031438e-07,
      "percentile": 0.854206557988516
    },
    "sha256": "368b6eb98bfb9d974df0b67d38b1423eba6deaf6ff77549f466db644a8146d18",
    "simhash": "1:ede441c7b1b88d9b",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:50.492694+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VAN BROWN v. JOHN HOUSE, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe appellee makes the objection to the petition for certiorari that the appellant has not filed a transcript of the record proper (or shown why he could not do so) as a basis for the motion for a certiorari for the \u201c case on appeal.\u201d The objection is fatal. Pittman v. Kimberly, 92 N. C., 562; Owens v. Phelps, 91 N. C., 253 ; State v. Freeman, 114 N. C., 872; Wheeler v. Shober, at this Term. The petitioner for certiorari must show himself \"free from laches by doing all in his power towards having the appeal perfected and docketed in time.\nIt also appears that the case on appeal has been settled by the judge and is in the clerk\u2019s office below, and it is averred by the appellee, and not denied by the appellant, that the judge has endorsed thereon that it was settled \u201cupon disagreement of counsel;\u201d but if appellant\u2019s contention is correct, that no exception was filed and that he did not consent to settlement of the case by the judge, his condition is no better, for neither his own statement of the case nor the record proper has been sent up, and no excuse is shown. The appellant pleads as his excuse why the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d signed by the judge, has not been sent up, that the cleric charged exorbitant fees for making out the transcript of the same for this Court. If so, the appellant\u2019s remedy was to pay the fees, and send up the transcript, and move to have the clerk\u2019s charges retaxed. It is the duty of the appellant to pay the costs of the transcript even in a pauper appeal. Bailey v. Brown, 105 N. C., 127; Speller v. Speller, at this Term. The certiorari must be denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VAN BROWN v. JOHN HOUSE, et al.\nAppeal \u2014 Record\u2014Certiorari.\n1. A petitioner for a certiorari must show himself free from laches by doing all in his power towards having the appeal perfected and docketed in time.\n3, The fact that the clerk below charged exorbitant fees for making the transcript of \u201cthe case on appeal,\u201d signed by the judge, is no excuse for appellant\u2019s failure to send up the record. If the fees were exorbitant, the appellant\u2019s remedy was to pay the fees, send up the transcript and move to have the clerk\u2019s charges retaxed.\nPbtxtioN for certiorari."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}