{
  "id": 8659579,
  "name": "ARMOUR PACKING COMPANY v. G. W. WILLIAMS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Armour Packing Co. v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1898-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "406",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 406"
    }
  ],
  "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": "113 N. C., 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653267
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652278
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0092-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2595,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0142981257367967e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8534111448196401
    },
    "sha256": "629da4890bacf6b96e5d85695629eb96c5fa84889131db0a9a5552baf1986daa",
    "simhash": "1:3231d190132aba5d",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARMOUR PACKING COMPANY v. G. W. WILLIAMS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe appeal was docketed at 10:.35 a. m. on Tuesday of the week to which it belongs. Under the present Rule 5 (121 N. CL, 694), the appellee might have moved to docket and dismiss under Rule 17 at the opening of court on Tuesday, or at any time afterwards during the term, if before the appellant dockets, the appeal, but as he did not make that motion till after the appellant had already docketed the appeal, his own lack of diligence cures the appellant\u2019s previous laches. Smith v. Montague, 121 N. C., 92; Triplett v. Foster, 113 N. C., 389. The only difference in the present rule and that under which those cases were decided is that now, appeals being required to be docketed at the opening of the court on Tuesday of the week of the district to which an appeal belongs, the appellee can move earlier to docket and dismiss, but the principle is the same that, if he does not make that motion till after the appellant actually dockets his appeal, the motion to dismiss is too late. The appeal having been docketed after the time required (10 a. m. on Tuesday) does not stand for argument at this term, and the motion to dismiss for failure to print must also be denied. It will be sufficient if the transcript is printed when the case is reached for argument. Smith v. Montague, supra.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. T. W. Strange for defendant (appellee).",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARMOUR PACKING COMPANY v. G. W. WILLIAMS et al.\n(Decided May 24, 1898).\nAppeal \u2014 Docketing Appeal \u2014 Dismissal\u2014 Printing Record on Appeal \u2014 Practice.\n1. Unless appellant dockets his appeal by the beginning o\u00ed the call of the calendar for the district to which his case belongs, the appellee can move to docket and dismiss; if such motion, however, is not made until after the appellant actually dockets his appeal, at any time during the term, the motion is too late, the appellee\u2019s lack of diligence serving to cure the appellant\u2019s previous laches.\n2. As an appeal docketed after the time required does not stand for argument until the next ensuing term, it is sufficient if the transcript is printed when the case is reached for argument.\nCivil action tried before Adams, J., at January Term, 1898, of New Hanover Superior Court. From a judgment for the defendant the plaintiff appealed. The appeal was not docketed at 10 o\u2019clock a. m. on Tuesday when the call of the calendar of cases from the Sixth district began, hut was docketed at 10:35 a. m. on that day. The appellee thereupon moved to dismiss under Rule 17 for appellant\u2019s failure to docket before the Court began the call of the causes of the district.\nMr. T. W. Strange for defendant (appellee).\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0406-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}