{
  "id": 11268752,
  "name": "OAK HALL CLOTHING COMPANY v. ANTHONY BAGLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oak Hall Clothing Co. v. Bagley",
  "decision_date": "1908-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "37",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. 37"
    }
  ],
  "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": 223,
    "char_count": 4023,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.37387855639473e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8759881367600968
    },
    "sha256": "a71fa2ad46c1477ca797079c8c7056387a8a78504237e9e3ef39e120d5cbb9e9",
    "simhash": "1:5090a2afd7a45527",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OAK HALL CLOTHING COMPANY v. ANTHONY BAGLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BkowN, J.\nThe defendant moves to dismiss the appeal because no case on appeal has been served. The plaintiff contends that, without any case on appeal, there is error apparent upon the record, and that his Honor, Judge Biggs, should have rendered judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor upon the issues, and assigns such refusal as error. His Honor had no right to set aside the verdict at the succeeding June Term, although the said Judge held both terms, unless the parties to the action had consented to the continuance of such motion to the June Term. At June Term the Judge finds as a fact that such consent had been duly given at March Term, and that finding, entered of record, is practically an amendment of the record at March Term.\nWe cannot review the exercise of his Honor\u2019s discretion in granting a new trial upon the ground that the verdict is against tbe weight of tbe evidence. Nor can we review tbe correctness of bis instruction to tbe jury, in tbe absence of a case on appeal duly served and settled. TJpon tbe face of tbe record before us, we find no error in bis Honor\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion for judgment. Let tbe costs of this Court be taxed against tbe plaintiff.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BkowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winslon & Everett for plaintiff.",
      "Gilliam & Martin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OAK HALL CLOTHING COMPANY v. ANTHONY BAGLEY.\n(Filed 4 March, 1908).\n1. Power of Court \u2014 Judgments Continued \u2014 Subsequent Term \u2014 Consent of Parties.\nThe Judge below has no power to continue motions for judgments upon or to set aside verdicts to be passed upon by him at a subsequent term of court, without the consent of the parties litigant.\n2. Same \u2014 Amendment of Record.\nIt is practically an amendment of the record at a subsequent term when the Judge finds, at the succeeding term, that the parties litigant consented that motions respecting judgment at the former term should be continued.\n3. Power of Court \u2014 Verdict Set Aside \u2014 Discretion.\nWhen the Judge below sets a verdict aside, in his discretion, as being against the weight of the evidence, his action is not the subject of review upon appeal.\n4. Appeal and Error \u2014 Case on Appeal not Served.\nIn the absence of case on appeal duly served, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the correctness of the charge of the Judge below, sent up with the judgment appealed from, continuing, without the consent of the parties litigant, the motions upon verdict rendered to a subsequent term.\nCivil actioN for tbe recovery of a money demand, beard at March Term, 19 OY, of the Superior Court of Mae/tiN County, before Biggs, Jand a jury.\nThe court submitted the following issues:\n\u201c1. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff ? If so, in what amount?\u201d Answer: \u201cThree hundred and ninety-two dollars and eighteen cents, with interest on $362.18 from 3 September, 1895, and interest on $29 from 15 July, 1900.\u201d\n\u201c2. Is the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action barred by the statute of limitations?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\nThe record contains the following entry at said term: \u201cPlaintiff moves for judgment. Defendant moves to set aside verdict. Both motions continued until next term of court.\u201d\nAt June Term, 1907, his Honor, J. Grawford Biggs, Judge presiding, the following order was made, verbally: \u201cMotion to set aside verdict at March Term, 1907. Motion allowed. Verdict set aside for errors made in the charge. New trial ordered. The plaintiff appeals from this judgment. Martin County \u2014 In the Superior Court, June Term, 1907. Oah Hall Clothing Company v. Anthony Bagley. In this cause the defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict rendered, at March Term, 1907, and the plaintiff\u2019s motion for judgment upon the verdict having been both continued by consent, to be heard at the June Term, 1907, the court, upon consideration of the motions, sets the verdict aside in the exercise of its discretion, upon the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the testimony, and upon the further ground of error in the instructions to the jury. J. Crawford Biggs, Judge. 22 June, 1907.\u201d\nFrom this judgment the plaintiff appealed.\nWinslon & Everett for plaintiff.\nGilliam & Martin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0037-01",
  "first_page_order": 75,
  "last_page_order": 77
}