{
  "id": 8655984,
  "name": "A. D. WILLIS v. ATLANTIC & DANVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willis v. Atlantic & Danville Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "718",
  "last_page": "720",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. 718"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 N. C., 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277642
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/83/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651277
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8686884
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682979
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649801,
        8649822
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0228-01",
        "/nc/114/0228-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651738
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0694-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3657,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3192307736860334
    },
    "sha256": "f81701351c349963ff29dbe636005a6bc44bd65d0e761682e0f8fd5886415d75",
    "simhash": "1:b3a6f2a819d05ff5",
    "word_count": 650
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:50.492694+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. D. WILLIS v. ATLANTIC & DANVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J. :\nThis is not the case of a verbal agreement of counsel, which if denied, the court will not consider. Rule 39 ; Sondley v. Asheville, 112 N. C., 694; Graham v. Edwards, 114 N. C., 228. But here both sides agree substantially as to what passed. It was agreed that in lieu of the time prescribed by The Code, the appellant should be allowed twenty days to serve the case on appeal and the appellee twenty days to serve a counter case. ' In reply to an inquiry of the appellant\u2019s counsel, \u201c To whom shall I send the case?\u201d one of appellee\u2019s counsel said, \u201cSend to J.\u201d By this arrangement the appellant\u2019s counsel understood, and not unreasonably, that The Code requirement as to service was waived, as well as the time limit, and sent.the case on appeal and the judge\u2019s notes to \u201cJ.\u201dby express six days before the agreed twenty days expired, and also wrote him a letter by the same mail notifying him of the fact. The appellee\u2019s counsel insists that he did not intend to waive service by an officer, but he must have perceived from the appellant\u2019s counsel\u2019s sending the case by express aud the purport of his letter that the latter had so understood him, and if he had promptly notified the appellant\u2019s counsel of his mistake there would have been ample time to have corrected the error by causing service to be made by an officer. But he did not give such notification till another letter had been written him and the twenty days\u2019 time had expired.\nWe can give no weight to the alleged \u201c liberal practice prevailing in the district,\u201d which cannot avail against the statute (Shober v. Hutchinson, 74 N. C., 432), but from the nndenied facts there was a reasonable misapprehension on the part of the appellant\u2019s counsel, and the writ of certiorari should issue. Parker v. Railroad, 84 N. C., 118 ; Graves v. Hines, 106 N. C., 323 ; Walton v. Pearson, 83 N. C., 309.\nThe appellee will have until five days after the certificate of this opinion is filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Caswell county to serve his counter-case or exceptions to the appellant\u2019s case. If the parties cannot agree upon a case, it will then be settled by the judge who tried the case, in the manner provided by The Code.\nPetition Granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J. :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. J. A. Long and J. W. Graham, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Battle c& Mordeeai, E. B. Withers, and W. A. Fentress, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. D. WILLIS v. ATLANTIC & DANVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY.\nAppeal \u2014 Case on Appeal \u2014 Waiver of Service \u2014 Agreement of Counsel \u2014 Certiorari.\nUpon an appeal being taken at the close of a trial it was agreed that appellant should have twenty days to serve his case on appeal and the appellee the same time to serve his counter-case, and in answer to an inquiry by ap>pellant\u2019s counsel, \u201c To whom shall the case be sent ? \u201d one of appellee\u2019s counsel said,\u201c Send it to J.\u201d The case, with the judge\u2019s notes was accordingly sent to \u201c J.\u201d by express six days before the expiration of the limit, and a letter was also sent by mail the same day. Appellee\u2019s counsel did not return the case or notify the appellant\u2019s counsel that service by an officer would be required until another letter was written and the twenty days had expired; Held, that, upon the undenied facts as to the agreement, the appellant\u2019s counsel had reasonable ground to believe that The Code requirement as to service by an officer was waived, and certiorari will issue to bring up the record.\nAoiton, tried at Fall Term, 1896, of Caswell Superior Court. The appellant moved in this Court for a writ of certiorari to bring up the record. The grounds of the motion are set out in the opinion of Associate Justice Clark.\nMessrs. J. A. Long and J. W. Graham, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Battle c& Mordeeai, E. B. Withers, and W. A. Fentress, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0718-01",
  "first_page_order": 746,
  "last_page_order": 748
}