{
  "id": 8651786,
  "name": "SAWYER v. LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sawyer v. Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1906-10-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "142 N.C. 162"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N. C., 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/130/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654101
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273998
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273856
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2805,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.428,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.958875016565372e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5020319717481598
    },
    "sha256": "67133e293a1e12ad3f17a19e117bb3b458aab86d7bddc94f09b9763bbe1bc7d2",
    "simhash": "1:e4adbd213e3cf427",
    "word_count": 518
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:29.740348+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SAWYER v. LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe defendant at the close of the evidence, and before the argument began, requested the Court \u201cfor put its charge to the jury in writing, and in part to charge the jury as follows\u201d \u2014 here follows seventeen paragraphs of special instructions asked. The whole charge on the law was not put in writing, and this entitles the defendant to a new trial, Rev., sec. 536, though this section does not require the recapitulation of evidence to be in writing. Jenkins v. Railroad, 110 N. C., 438; Bank v. Sumner, 119 N. C., 591. This exception, like all other exceptions to\u00bb defects or errors in the charge, is taken in time if first set out in the appellant\u2019s \u201ccase oil appeal.\u201d Drake v. Connelly, 107 N. C., 463. It is like a failure to charge on a specific point when specially requested in writing, which is deemed excepted to, provided the exception is set out in the case on appeal. State v. Blankenship, 117 N. C., 808; Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 58; McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 363.\nThis is not like Phillips v. Railroad, 130 N. C., 582, where the request to the Court was \u201cto charge the jury in writing and as follows,\u201d which was held to be simply a request to give the written prayers which followed. Here the request is explicit to \u201ccharge the jury in writing\u201d and as \u201cpart of its charge\u201d to give the instructions specifically added. It is but just to the learned Judge who tried this case to add that he states that through inadvertence, in the haste of the trial, he did not observe that the prayer was to put his charge in writing, as well as to give the prayers subjoined. But as the statute gives a party a right to have the whole charge, as to the law, put in writing if asked \u201cat or before the close of the evidence,\u201d we must direct a\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nicholson & Daniel, Ward &-Gh'imes, and Id. G. Bragaw for the plaintiff.",
      "Small & McLean and Murray Allen for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SAWYER v. LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed October 2, 1906).\nCharge in Writing \u2014 Exceptions and Objections \u2014 Recapitulation of Evidence.\n1. Where the defendant at the close of the evidence requested the Court \u201cto put the charge to the jury in writing, and in part to charge the jury as follows,\u201d and the whole charge on the law was not put in writing, this entitles the defendant to a new trial.\n2. Rev. see. 536 does not require the recapitulation of evidence to be in writing. '\n3. An exception to\u00bb the failure of the Judg'e to\u00bb put his charge in writing, when asked \u201cat or before the close of the evidence,\u201d is taken in time if first set out in the appellant\u2019s \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d\nActioN by J. L. Sawyer against Roanoke Railroad and Lumber Company, beard by Judge Walter II. Neal and a jury, at tbe February Term, 1906, of the Superior Court of Beaufort. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nNicholson & Daniel, Ward &-Gh'imes, and Id. G. Bragaw for the plaintiff.\nSmall & McLean and Murray Allen for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 193
}