{
  "id": 8685824,
  "name": "Peter Arrington v. Gideon Bass et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arrington v. Bass",
  "decision_date": "1831-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 95"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 95"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.307,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5231565624096232
    },
    "sha256": "882e74c09347eefa25c5ec6449990c4a19af062a450a095926c08089f36b58ef",
    "simhash": "1:e78374b896727e57",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Arrington v. Gideon Bass et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Haxx, Judge.\nThe first notice we have of this case\nis at August term, 1829= At that term the case was continued upon cause shown by the defendant Bass ; and the court by the, act of 1822 (Rex c. 1131) had the power; to continue it upon sufficient cause shown. Suppose for instance, that owing to some unavoidable accident, the defendant had it not in his power to prove, that he had given ten'days, notice to Ido creditors or their agents;, or attorneys, of his intention to avail himself of the benefit of the act: the court could not d\u00f3 otherwise than grant a continuance. At November term, judgment was given against the defendant; and nothing illegal appears, in that The reason why -it was entered nunc pro t\u00fane, is not obvious. But certainly they ought to have given judgment, because it does not appear\u2019 that the defendant Bass then made Ms appearance, or caused it to he en- .,, . tered. The bond which he gave for bis appearance was as \u00b0hligutoiy 011 him to attend then, as at the preceding term when the continuance was, granted at his instance, (Mooring v. James, ante 2 vol. 254.) And as he did not enter his appearance at the subsequent term\u00bb judgment against Mm was the legal consequence.\nTer Cui\u00edxus\u00ed.' \u2014 Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Haxx, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "BewrmXf for the plnintifiV",
      "Badger, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Arrington v. Gideon Bass et al.\nThe defendant in a ca- so. bond, given under the act of 1822 {Rev. c. 1131) is bound to attend at every term until the cause is finally disposed of.\nThe defendant Bass was arrested upon a ca. sa. and gave bond under the act of 1822 {Tuylor\u2019s Rev. c. 1131) for his appearance at the August term, 1829, of Nash County Court. At that term, the following entry was made in the cause : \u201c Continued, upon cause shown by the defendant.\u201d At the ensuing- term, upon a default by Bass, judgment was rendered \u00abgainst the defendant and his sureties \u201c now as of the last termfrom which the defendants appealed.\nOn the'last circuit, his Honor Judge MartiN reversed the judgment of the County Court, and the plaintiff appealed.\nA judgment , nwnc pro tunc is not erroneous, that0\u201d it should have been as of the present term.\nBewrmXf for the plnintifiV\nBadger, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 102
}