{
  "id": 11269979,
  "name": "STATE ex rel. JOHN W. ETCHISON et al. v. JAMES McGUIRE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Etchison v. McGuire",
  "decision_date": "1908-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. 388"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 N. C., 889",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1554,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0339417598544793e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5489430078742042
    },
    "sha256": "ba5e8b28ba33cbd6e06e24793bb42a501d51e1dbcb8529a64fb55835eca6385a",
    "simhash": "1:7d050f82acf4ceef",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE ex rel. JOHN W. ETCHISON et al. v. JAMES McGUIRE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beown, J.\nThe plaintiffs except to and appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Justice, at September Term, 1907, of the Superior Court of Davie County, directing that W. A. Bailey be made a party defendant'and that a summons issue, returnable to the following term. The defendant moves to dismiss the appeal in this Court upon the ground that it is premature, and we are of opinion that, under the authorities,' the motion must be allowed.\nThere may be cases, where the injury to a party\u2019s right is manifest, in which this Court will entertain such an appeal, but the wrong done these plaintiffs by the order has not been made plain to us. The Court has- said: \u201cIt can very rarely happen that making an additional party will be a serious prejudice, and hence such orders are usually discretionary and not revi,ewable.\u201d Bernard v. Shemwell, 139 N. C., 447; Tillery v. Candler, 118 N. C., 889, and cases cited; The Code, sec. 273.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. B. Bailey and A. T. Grant, Jr., for plaintiffs.",
      "Watson, Buxton & Watson and E. L. Gaither for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE ex rel. JOHN W. ETCHISON et al. v. JAMES McGUIRE.\n(Filed 17 April, 1908).\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Order Making Parties \u2014 No Prejudice to Appellant Appearing \u2014 Premature Appeal.\nOrders of the lower court making additional parties to an action are usually discretionary, and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed as prematurely taken when it does not appear in what manner the rights of the appellant are prejudiced.\nActioN heard by Justice, J., at Spring Term, 1907, of Davie.\nPlaintiffs appealed.\nT. B. Bailey and A. T. Grant, Jr., for plaintiffs.\nWatson, Buxton & Watson and E. L. Gaither for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 427
}