{
  "id": 8661532,
  "name": "BIRD v. BRADBURN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bird v. Bradburn",
  "decision_date": "1902-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "488",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 N.C. 488"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 N. C., 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682753
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652202
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0737-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N. C., 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8648962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273234
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0123-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3975,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.457686262448585e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9601057822290026
    },
    "sha256": "4ef8b867b4e38e4bd6d57c578c8158a7e7ce2bbc46dc2f4ccbad321b6982deaa",
    "simhash": "1:a01a8ff9d1ac2576",
    "word_count": 723
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:51.027382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BIRD v. BRADBURN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nOn the coming in of the verdict in favor of defendant, the plaintiff\u2019s counsel moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. After argument of counsel, the Court, at the same term, granted the motion, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, and the cause was continued. The defendant requested the Court to find the facts and state its reasons upon the record for setting aside the verdict. The Court declined to do so, beyond stating that the verdict was \u201cset aside in the exercise of the discretion which is vested in the Court, in order that the case may be properly tried hereafter and justice done to all the parties.\u201d\nThe power of the Court to set aside the verdict as a matter of discretion has always been inherent, and is necessary to the proper administration of justice. The Judge is not a mere moderator, but is an integral part of the trial, and, when be perceives that justice has not been done, it is bis) duty to set aside the verdict. His discretion to do so is not limited to cases in which there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of the verdict having been against the weight of the evidence (in which, of course, be will be reluctant to set bis opinion against that of the twelve), but be may perceive tbat there bas been prejudice in the community, which has affected the jurors, possibly uninown to themselves, but perceptible to the Judge \u2014 who is usually a stranger \u2014 or a very able lawyer has procured an advantage over an inferior one, an advantage legitimate enough in him, but which has brought about a result which the Judge sees is contrary to justice. In such, and many other instances) which would not furnish a legal ground to set aside the verdict, the discretion reposed in the trial Judge should be brought to bear to secure the administration of exact justice. This being an exercise of discretion, it could subserve no possible purpose to find the facts (Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C., bottom of page 494) ; indeed, in view of the effect in a new trial, it would be sometimes important that the facts should not be spread upon the record.\nIt is only when a new trial is granted as a matter of law that such action is reviewable, and then the facts should be found. When the verdict is set aside as a matter of discretion, it is not necessary to find the facts; Allison v. Whittier, supra; and no appeal lies, Braid v. Lukins, 95 N. C., 123; Jones v. Parker, 97 N. C., 33; and if no reason is given, it is presumed that the new trial was granted as a matter of discretion, and the appeal will be dismissed. Braid v. Lukins, supra; State v. Braddy, 104 N. C., 737.\nThe appellant relies upon Moore v. Edmiston, 70 N. C., 471; Johnson v. Bell, 74 N. C., 355; Carson v. Dellinger, 90 N. C., 226, that the Judge, if requested, should put on record his reasons for setting aside the verdict that his action may be reviewed. The Code, Sec. 548. These cases state that if his action was not in the exercise of his discretion, it is reviewable, and therefore his reasons should be given, if asked. That has been done here, for the Judge has stated, when- requested to give his reasons, that the verdict was set aside \u201cin the exercise of the discretion which is vested in the Court.\u201d This matter has already been discussed and decided at this term. Wood v. Railroad, at this term, page 48.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter E. Moore, for the plaintiff.",
      "Coleman C. Cowan, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BIRD v. BRADBURN.\n(Filed December 16, 1902.)\nVERDICT \u2014 Betting Aside \u2014 Judge\u2014Discretion\u2014Appeal\u2014Findings of Court \u2014 Findings of Fact\u2022 \u2014 The Code, Bee. 5^8.\nWhere the trial judge sets aside the verdict as a matter of discretion, it is not necessary for him to find the facts, and no appeal lies therefrom.\nActioN by J. W. Byrd against J. E. Bradburn, beard by Judge Frederick Moore and a jury, at May Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of Jackson County. From an order setting aside a verdict for the defendant, the defendant appealed.\nWalter E. Moore, for the plaintiff.\nColeman C. Cowan, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0488-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 528
}