{
  "id": 8657720,
  "name": "JOHN R. PENDER, Receiver v. J. P. MALLETT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pender v. Mallett",
  "decision_date": "1898-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "164",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 N. C., 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688929
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/111/0032-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1806,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.303135928119256e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7875941802012395
    },
    "sha256": "b25da2fae0029fb7f6e501c2d862783389417891e263c827534de816f364217b",
    "simhash": "1:1fd9cbf43d436667",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN R. PENDER, Receiver v. J. P. MALLETT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe Court overruled the demurrer, gave the defendant time till the 20th May, to file answer, and ordered that defendants appear before the Clerk to be examined under oath concerning the matters set out in the pleadings, Code, Section 580 et seq. The defendant excepted to the order and the judgment, but the Court being of opinion that an appeal did not lie, noted the exception and directed the Clerk not now to send up a transcript. The defendants thereupon applied, after notice to the plaintiff, to this Court for a certiorari. It is true that an appeal from the order of examination is premature and will not lie. Vann v. Lawrence, 111 N. C., 32; Holt v. Warehouse Co., 116 N. C., 480. But an appeal lies from the judgment overruling a demurrer. Commissioners v. Magnin, 78 N. C., 181; Ramsay v. Railroad, 91 N. C., 418, and they are decisive of this application. The hearing here was complicated with other matters which have no bearing upon the sole question before us, which is as to the defendant\u2019s right to appeal at this stage of the case. The certiorari will issue, but it will not suspend the order of examination of defendants.\nMotion allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Jacob Battle, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. O. M. T. Fountain, for defendants (petitioners)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN R. PENDER, Receiver v. J. P. MALLETT et al.\n(Decided May 2s, 1898).\nPractice \u2014 Appeal\u2014Demurrer\u2014Order for Examination Under Section 580 of The Code.\n1. An appeal lies from a judgment overruling a demurrer.\n2. A party caenot appeal from an order to appear before the Clerk to be examined under oath concerning the matters set out in the pleadings as provided in Section 580 et. seq. of The Code.\nPetition by defendant for Certiorari as substitute for an appeal in an action pending in Edgecombe Superior Court on the grounds stated in the opinion.\nMr. Jacob Battle, for plaintiff.\nMr. O. M. T. Fountain, for defendants (petitioners)."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 195,
  "last_page_order": 196
}