{ "id": 11269529, "name": "GEORGE McCLINTOCK v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA", "name_abbreviation": "McClintock v. Life Insurance", "decision_date": "1908-11-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "35", "last_page": "36", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 N.C. 35" } ], "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": "132 N. C., 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. C., 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270234 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/146/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651005 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N. C., 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2083628 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/68/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 N. C., 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274748 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0588-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 239, "char_count": 3344, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.3945801473367752 }, "sha256": "ab16c52be1247785798c156c45192a4861e606e22f0619413f73f38647fa0168", "simhash": "1:d5f9d3f20afbb528", "word_count": 603 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GEORGE McCLINTOCK v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Glare, O. J.\nBevisal, see. 607, provides, \u201cIf the appellant shall fail to have his appeal docketed as required by law, the appellee may, at the term of said court next succeeding the. term to which the appeal is taken, have the case placed upon the docket, and upon motion, the judgment of the Justice shall be affirmed.\u201d The dismissal of the appeal had the same effect. Hevisal, sec. 608, required this appeal to be docketed \u201cat the ensuing term\u201d of the appellate court, if more than ten days after judgment. Pants Co. v. Smith, 125 N. C., 588.\nIt is true, the Judge finds that the Clerk was in the custom of docketing such appeals without requiring payment of fees,, that the Clerk was in bad health and the docket was crowded. For these reasons, the Judge in his discretion, might (if the delay .in docketing was not too gross) have allowed a motion to docket nunc pro tunc. Marsh v. Cohen, 68 N. C., 283; West v. Reynolds, 94 N. C., 333. Here, the appellant neither paid the Clerk\u2019s fees, nor requested him to docket the appeal, nor paid any attention to it for eleven months, during which time there were five terms of the Superior Court. If it were conceded that, after such laches, the Judge could,-in his discretion, have allowed the appeal to be docketed, it is clear that his refusal to do so is not reviewable. This has been held lately by Brown, J., in Lentz v. Hinson, 146 N. C., 31, and by Walker, in Blair v. Coakley, 136 N. C., 409, citing many cases. In Johnson v. Andrews, 132 N. C., 376 (relied on by appellant), the fees were paid to the Clerk, and he was requested to docket the appeal, and the Clerk later-informed the appellant that he had done so.\nAs this Court has often stated, \u201cif a person has a case in court the best thing he can do is to attend to it.\u201d Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C., 316.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Glare, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Scott & McLean for plaintiff.", "King & Kimball and Steelman & Goohe for defendant..-" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GEORGE McCLINTOCK v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.\n(Filed 5 November, 1908).\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Justice\u2019s Court \u2014 Appeal Dismissed in Superior Court, Effect of \u2014 Procedure.\nTbe dismissal of an appeal from a court of a Justice of tbe Peace, when not docketed by tbe appellant at tbe term of the Superior Court prescribed by Revisal, sec. 608, has tbe same effect as an affirmation of a judgment thereof under sec. '607, Revisal.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Justice\u2019s Court \u2014 Motion to Dismiss \u2014 Laches \u2014Discretion\u2014Procedure.\nThe action of tbe lower Court is not reviewabl\u00e9 in allowing th\u00e9 motion of the appellee, from a judgment rendered in a court of tbe Justice of tbe Peace, to docket and dismiss an appeal when the appellant had neither paid the Clerk\u2019s fees nor requested him to docket the appeal.\nActioN heard by Webb, J., at June Term, 1908, of Guil-ford. Defendant appealed.\nJudgment was taken before a Justice of the Peace 8 September, 1906. An appeal was taken in open court and the transcript on appeal was promptly sent to the Clerk of the Superior Court. At August Term, 1907, the appeal not having been docketed (though in the interim five terms of the Superior Court had been held), the appellee moved to docket and dismiss. This motion was continued from term to term till January Term, 1908, when it was allowed. At no time prior to August Term, 1907, did the appellant ask tb docket the appeal, or for a recordari.\nScott & McLean for plaintiff.\nKing & Kimball and Steelman & Goohe for defendant..-" }, "file_name": "0035-01", "first_page_order": 69, "last_page_order": 70 }