{
  "id": 8659552,
  "name": "R. W. HICKS v. J. H. ROYAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hicks v. Royal",
  "decision_date": "1898",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "405",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 405"
    }
  ],
  "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": "121 N. C., 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654527
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652607
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0183-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1184,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30090267810980487
    },
    "sha256": "2a6db6c80676348ad40bb6f5616df26d09648c9b49e07263a92b6f2b7e82608a",
    "simhash": "1:54536496c60bc6f6",
    "word_count": 209
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. W. HICKS v. J. H. ROYAL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nAn exhibit which is made a part of the pleadings and is material to understanding the plea of < \u2018another action pending for the same' cause\u201d is not printed. Even under the former rule, the motion to dismiss would have been allowed. Fleming v. McPhail, 121 N. C., 183; Barnes v. Crawford, 119 N. C., 127. Much the more so is this true under the present Rule 28, (121 N. C., 695) which, to avoid just such disputes as to the materiality of omitted parts, requires the entire transcript on appeal to be printed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. H. E. Faison and Frank McNeill for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Messrs. J. L. Stewart, J. D. Kerr and J. D. Bellamy for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. W. HICKS v. J. H. ROYAL.\nAppeal \u2014 Rule \u2014 Printing Exhibit \u2014 Dismissal of Appeal.\nWhere an exhibit, made a part of the'pleadings and necessary to the understanding of a plea in the action, is not printed as a part of the record on appeal, the appeal will be dismissed under Rule 28.\nCivil action tried before MeZams, J., at January Term, 1898, of New Hanover Superior Court. There was a judgment for the defendants and plaintiff appealed. In this Court the defendant (appellee) moved to dismiss under Rule 28.\nMessrs. H. E. Faison and Frank McNeill for plaintiff (appellant).\nMessrs. J. L. Stewart, J. D. Kerr and J. D. Bellamy for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0405-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 438
}