{
  "id": 8660049,
  "name": "HOUSTON v. LUMBER CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houston v. Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1904-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 N.C. 328"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 Am. St. Rep., 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 784",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0784-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650522
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653224
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2345,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20768894248274705
    },
    "sha256": "65e03a5918f7462cf0a3e452b571f1b46edbf737f1671166cf6587bed1725e30",
    "simhash": "1:9b09b32476228283",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:53:15.809157+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HOUSTON v. LUMBER CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe summons issued against the \u201cGreensboro Lumber Co. and J. T. B. Shaw, receiver.\u201d It was served upon \u201cJ. T. B. Shaw, receiver of the Greensboro /Lumber Company.\u201d The action was dismissed as to the receiver on demurrer because leave of Court had not been obtained to bring action against the receiver.. There was no answer or demurrer filed as to the company and judgment against it was taken by default and inquiry. After the adjournment for the term, but within ten days thereafter, the defendant entered a special appearance and gave notice of appeal.\nA party to an action can take bis appeal by serving notice witbin ten days after adjournment of Court. The Code, sec. 549; Russell v. Hearne, 113 N. C., 361; Davison v. Land Co., 120 N. C., 259. But tbe appeal must be taken by a party to tbe action, and tbe entry of a special jippearance did not authorize counsel so appearing to appeal. An appeal by counsel \u201cappearing specially\u201d is no appeal. Clark v. Mfg. Co., 110 N. C., 111.\nTbe appeal, even if it bad been regularly taken, was premature. If not duly served witb process, tbe defendant \u201ccould either have disregarded tbe further proceedings of tbe Court, which would have been a nullity, or it could have bad its exception noted and proceeded witb tbe trial.\u201d Guilford v. Georgia Co., 109 N. C., 312; Mullen v. Canal Co., 112 N. C., 109, and numerous cases cited in Clark\u2019s Code (3 Ed.), p. 738; Brown v. Nimocks, 126 N. C., 808; Cooper v. Wyman, 122 N. C., 784, 65 Am. St. Rep., 731.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. C. Biggs and Boone & Beade, for the plaintiff.",
      "Winston & Bryant and J. A. Barringer, for the defendant lumber company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOUSTON v. LUMBER CO.\n(Filed November 1, 1904).\n1. APPEAL \u2014 Notice\u2014The Code, sec. 549\nA party to an action may appeal by serving notice thereof within ten days after the adjournment of court.\n2. APPEAL \u2014 Appearances.\nThe entry of a special appearance does not authorize counsel so appearing to appeal from a judgment.\n3. APPEAL \u2014 Judgment Toy Default.\nAn appeal by counsel, \u201cappearing specially,\u201d from a judgment by default is premature.\nActioN by B. N. Houston against tbe Greensboro Lumber Company and J. T. B. Shaw, receiver, beard by Judge O. M. Co olee, at January Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Dubham County. From a judgment for the plaintiff the defendant lumber company appealed.\nJ. C. Biggs and Boone & Beade, for the plaintiff.\nWinston & Bryant and J. A. Barringer, for the defendant lumber company."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 369
}