{
  "id": 8657632,
  "name": "W. F. HENDERSON v. D. W. WILLIAMS, et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Henderson v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1897-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 N.C. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": "66 N. C., 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277177
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 3164,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.474803707024323e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6599753499142228
    },
    "sha256": "1dbafcab82000c62d94c8e5e1db135079c566ae7d788a4e1e1361055fb870ef0",
    "simhash": "1:297365d3fb7bfb51",
    "word_count": 543
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:11.774475+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. F. HENDERSON v. D. W. WILLIAMS, et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faieoloth, C. J.:\nThe summons was returnable to Fall Term, 1895. At Fall Term, 1896, the plaintiff took a non-suit and judgment was entered against him for costs. The defendant had witnesses in attendance and their tickets were taxed against the plaintiff, who at next term moved to re-tax the costs and to exclude the defendant\u2019s witnesses\u2019 cost on the ground that they were not sworn, examined or tendered against the plaintiff. His Honor allowed the motion and directed the Clerk accordingly.\nThis was error. The case was brought for trial at Fall Term, 1896, and the defendant properly had his witnesses present. He bad no opportunity to swear, examine or tender bis witnesses by reason of tbe non-suit. It is where a trial is bad and tbe witnesses are not sworn or tendered that tbeii costs cannot be taxed against tbe party cast. Loftis v. Raxter, 66 N. C., 340. When such costs are allowed, see Code, Sections 528 and 532.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faieoloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Glenn & Manly and W. W. Barber, for defend, ants (appellants).",
      "No counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. F. HENDERSON v. D. W. WILLIAMS, et als.\nPractice \u2014 Costs\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Witnesses Not Sworn.\nWhere a defendant\u2019s witnesses are present when the case is called for trial but are not sworn or tendered because plaintiff takes a non-suit, the costs of such witnesses are properly taxable against the plaintiff.\nThis was a motion made by the plaintiff before Clerk of the Superior Court of Wilkes county, to re-tax bills of cost theretofore made out and taxed against the plaintiff, and from the judgment of the Clerk the plaintiff appealed to his Honor L. L. Green, Judge, at Chambers. The summons issued in the original cause July 9, 1895, returnable to Fall Term, 1895. The complaint, alleging injury to plaintiff\u2019s land, was filed July 15, 1895. The answer denying the allegations of plaintiff\u2019s complaint was filed at Fall Term, 1895. At Spring Term, 1896, of Wilkes Superior Court, the plaintiff asked for a continuance for the want of the testimony of one-Brown, which continuance his Honor, Judge Norwood, granted upon the plaintiff paying the cost of the term.\nAt Fall Term, 1896, of Wilkes Superior Court the case was called, and the plaintiff in open court took a non-suit.\nOn Monday, January 18, 1897, the plaintiff,through his attorney, L. S. Benbow, came hefore the Clerk and made a motion to re-tax the cost in the case upon the grounds that no witness should be allowed to prove his attendance, except those who were sworn, examined or tendered against the party cast. No witness was sworn.\nAfter hearing and considering the motion, i,he Clerk adjudged that, as the case was disposed of at term time, he had no jurisdiction to order cost re-taxed.\nFrom this ruling the plaintiff appealed to Green, Judge, at Chambers, who held that the Clerk erred in bolding he had no jurisdiction to order the cost re-taxed. And the cause was remanded to the Clerk, who was commanded to re-tax all the cost, from commencement of the action entire, and in so doing to allow no witnesses subpoenaed by the defendants to be taxed against the plaintiff, except those who were sworn, examined or tendered.\nFrom this judgment the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Glenn & Manly and W. W. Barber, for defend, ants (appellants).\nNo counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 369
}