{ "id": 8659723, "name": "HENRY B. STEVENS et als v. C. L. SMATHERS et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. Smathers", "decision_date": "1898-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "497", "last_page": "499", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "123 N.C. 497" } ], "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": "107 N. C., 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273574 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/107/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 N. C., 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651069 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/115/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 N. C., 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649396 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273172 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N. C., 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649905 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/99/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 N. C., 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651845 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/115/0295-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 193, "char_count": 3086, "ocr_confidence": 0.492, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.848989183728895e-08, "percentile": 0.417527817258844 }, "sha256": "3067d1d830d7ff49495d6f905c6fb14992728bd8357e4c9155b4aa77a8244aa7", "simhash": "1:068a82366d9143cd", "word_count": 552 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:57:12.442116+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HENRY B. STEVENS et als v. C. L. SMATHERS et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe appellant\u2019s case on appeal was'duly served, and in five days thereafter the appellee\u2019s exceptions were handed to the appellant\u2019s counsel, who accepted service thereof, as appears on the papers sent up. The appellant, however, thinking this insufficient, did not apply to the Judge to settle the case, as he should have done, but instead sent up his \u201ccase on appeal\u201d as if it had not been excepted to, and insists that it is the true case on appeal, and the appellee moves to dismiss on the ground that there is no legal case on appeal.\nThe case of McDaniel v. Scurlock, 115 N. C., 295, is on \u201call-fours\u201d with this. It is there held that the ap-. pellant cannot complain that his statement of case on appeal was not returned to him witlrin five days, when in fact the appellee\u2019s exceptions thereto were duly served on him within the five days, and that if in such case the appellant fails to apply to the Judge to settle the case, this Court may either take the appellant\u2019s \u201cstatement\u201d as modified by rhe appellee\u2019s exceptions as the case on appeal. (Russell v. Davis, 99 N. C., 215; Owens v. Phelps, 92 N. C., 231); or, in case of complication, remand the case to he settled by the Judge. \u00c1r- rington v. Arrington, 114 N. C., 115; Hinton v. Greenlee, 115 N. C., 5.\nThe latter is the condition here, and the case will be remanded that the Judge may settle the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d though it is optional with the Court in such cases whether it shall not affirm the judgment in the absence of a \u201ccase settled\u201d on appeal (there being no errors on the face of the record proper). Mitchell v. Tedder, 107 N. C., 358; Hinton v. Greenlee, supra.\nRemanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. Ferguson & Ferguson, for defendant (appellant).", "Messrs. Merrimon & Merrimon and George A. Shu-ford, tor plaintiff." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HENRY B. STEVENS et als v. C. L. SMATHERS et al.\n(Decided December 20, 1898.)\nAppeal.\nWhere an appellant\u2019s case on appeal has been excepted to in apt time, the appellant should forward the case and exceptions to the trial Judge to be settled by him jshouldthe case be sent to this Court without having been settled, it is optional with the \u2019Court either to take the appellant\u2019s case as modified by the exceptions, orto remand the case to be settled by the Judge below or to affirm the judgment in the absence of a \u201ccase settled,\u201d where there is no error on the face of the record proper.\nThis was an appeal from the Superior Court of Haywood County, Spring Term, 1898, Hoke, J., presiding.\nJudgment rendered in favor of plaintiff.\nAppeal by defendant Smathers.\nThe appellant\u2019s case on appeal was duly served, and the appellee\u2019s exceptions thereto, within five days, were handed to appellant\u2019s counsel, who accepted service thereof, but failed to apply to his Honor to settle the case, but had his \u201ccase on appeal\u201d sent up, as if it had not been excepted to. . \u2022\nIa this Court the appellant insisted his case was the true case on appeal, and the appellee moved to dismiss for that there was no legal case on appeal.\nThe case being one of some complication, was remanded to be settled by the Judge below.\nMessrs. Ferguson & Ferguson, for defendant (appellant).\nMessrs. Merrimon & Merrimon and George A. Shu-ford, tor plaintiff." }, "file_name": "0497-01", "first_page_order": 523, "last_page_order": 525 }