{
  "id": 8661930,
  "name": "D. S. RUSSELL v. HILL & NELSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1898-05-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "772",
  "last_page": "773",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 772"
    }
  ],
  "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": "104 N. C., 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652169
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0733-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 809",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0809-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1517,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20770071923112118
    },
    "sha256": "456b541149509b4322291323dc778c60c1c9ca8a107ef321f9c14236e02fd220",
    "simhash": "1:4d9dada77c4abdf0",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. S. RUSSELL v. HILL & NELSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nWhen there is a conflict between the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d stated by the Judge and the record proper, the latter governs. Cases cited in Clark\u2019s- Code (2nd Ed.), p. 579. But here the conflict is in the record itself. Upon the issues sent up in the record the second issue is answered \u201cNo,\u201d while in the judgment it is recited that it had been answered \u201c Yes.\u201d If this were a mere clerical error in copying it could he cured by a certiorari or by amendment here, State v. Beal, 119 N. C., 809; State v. Preston, 104 N. C., 733; but counsel concur that the conflict is in the original record below. Such being the case, the only remedy is by a new trial.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Q. S. Ferguson, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. JR. L. Leathenvood, for defendants, (appellants.)"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. S. RUSSELL v. HILL & NELSON.\n(Decided May 3rd, 1898.)\nAppeal \u2014 Record on Appeal \u2014 Cortflict in Record.\nWhile a mere clerical error in copying the record on appeal could he corrected in this Court by amendment or certiorari, an acknowledged conflict existing in the record below between the recitals in the judgment and the responses to the issues can only be corrected by a new trial.\nOivtl action for conversion of personal property, tried before Robinson, J., and a Jury, at August Special Term, 1897, of Swain Superior Court. From a judgment for the plaintiff the defendants appealed. The record on appeal, as well as that below, shows that the jury answered the second issue \u201cNo,\u201d while the judgment recited that the second issue was answered \u201cYes.\u201d\nMr. Q. S. Ferguson, for plaintiff.\nMr. JR. L. Leathenvood, for defendants, (appellants.)"
  },
  "file_name": "0772-01",
  "first_page_order": 804,
  "last_page_order": 805
}