{
  "id": 11272906,
  "name": "D. H. TRUELOVE v. W. B. NORRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Truelove v. Norris",
  "decision_date": "1910-03-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "755",
  "last_page": "757",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 755"
    }
  ],
  "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": "109 N. C., 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651149
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660759
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0472-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 4836,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6359297395330771
    },
    "sha256": "6b4d436f44c9edb7921912299ed4e5bc5b06d807394ff15a7efe6a69474d645c",
    "simhash": "1:00fb19855a4daf7b",
    "word_count": 884
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. H. TRUELOVE v. W. B. NORRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per. Curiam.\nMotion to docket and dismiss under Rule 17 for failure to'send up transcript in proper\u2019 time. Also to dismiss under Rule 30 for failure to print record, and under Rule 34 for failure to- print appellant\u2019s brief by noon of Saturday before the call of the district to which this appeal belongs. The appellant\u2019s counsel opposes these motions, and asks to docket the appeal now and to continue the cause.\nIt appears that at November, Term, 1909, of Harnett there was a motion to set aside a judgment which had been rendered at the preceding term. By consent, judgment was to be entered out of term, as of November term. On 10 January, 1910, the judgment setting aside the previous judgment was filed. By agreement of counsel, the record was to constitute the case on appeal and time, was allowed till 10 February to file appeal bond, which was done.\nThe transcript should have been docketed here under Rule 5, by 10 A. M., 8 March, i. e., seven days before the beginning of the call of the district to which the case belongs. This not being done, the appellee could have then docketed and moved to dismiss, and as the appellant\u2019s brief was not printed and filed with the clerk by noon of the following Saturday, the appellee could have then filed his motion in the clerk\u2019s office to dismiss on that ground. Vivian v. Mitchell, 144 N. C., 472; Cozart v. Assurance Co., 142 N. C., 523; Barber v. Justice, 138 N. C., 21.\nAppellant\u2019s counsel files bis affidavit tbat be asked tbe clerk to send up tbe appeal and said to bim tbat if be wanted bis fees be would pay tbem in advance, and tbe clerk said tbe bond was good and be would send up tbe transcript. Tbe clerk says be bas no recollection of sucb conversation. But it is immaterial bow tbat may be. As we said, in Pain v. Cureton, 114 N. C., 606, even if appellant bad paid tbe clerk\u2019s fees for tbe transcript, be could not \u201cthereafter leave tbe appeal to take care of itself like a log floating down a river or corn put into tbe hopper of a mill.\u201d Tbe appellee bas rights, and among tbem tbe right to have tbe appeal dismissed if not docketed in tbe prescribed time \u2014 unless tbe appellant is without laches. It was tbe duty of tbe appellant not merely to ask tbe clerk to- send up tbe transcript, but to see tbat it was sent up in apt time, docketed, printed, and brief prepared and printed. Tbe counsel is merely tbe agent of appellant in tbe duties of sending up, docketing and printing tbe transcript, and bis negligence is tbat of tbe client. This bas been often held. Vivian v. Mitchell, 144 N. C., 477, citing Calvert v. Carstarphen, 133 N. C., 26, 27; Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N. C., 84.\nNeglect could scarcely have been greater than in this case. Tbe appellant knew not only tbat the transcript should have been sent up before 10 A. M., 8 March, but docketed by tbat time. He took no steps to ascertain tbat these things were done. He knew tbat, in addition, bis brief must be prepared, printed and filed by noon of tbe Saturday following, and tbat tbe transcript must also be printed. He took no steps to these ends..\nIf an appellant is damaged by tbe negligence of his agent in these matters, bis remedy for any loss is against bis agent. Tbe appellee cannot be deprived of bis rights by tbe negligence of tbe appellant or bis agent.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per. Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. B. Chapin for plaintiff.",
      "E. F. Young and N. L. Godwin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. H. TRUELOVE v. W. B. NORRIS.\n(Filed 23 March, 1910.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Laches\u2014Motion to Dismiss.\nTranscripts of cases on appeal should be docketed in the Supreme Court, under Rule 5, seven days before the beginning- of the call of the district; and if not, the appeal may be dismissed under Rule 17. The appellant having failed to print and file his brief by the following Saturday, appellee could have filed his motion to dismiss with the clerk on that ground under Rule 34.\n2. Attorney and Client \u2014 Same\u2014Duty of Attorney.\nIt is the duty of appellant to see that the transcript of the case on appeal is sent up in apt time, docketed, printed and the brief prepared and printed, and upon his failure to do so without a sufficient legal excuse, the case will be dismissed on proper motion made by the appellee.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Laches\u2014Clerk\u2019s Fees \u2014 Motion to Dismiss.\nThe mere fact that appellant tendered payment to the Superior Court Clerk bf his fees for transcript on appeal, and the clerk said he would send up the transcript without payment, that the bond was good, etc., is no sufficient legal excuse for the failure to docket under Buie 5.\n4. Appeal and Error \u2014 Laches of Attorney \u2014 Remedy.\nThe appellant\u2019s attorney is his agent to attend to the perfecting of the appeal, and his. remedy is against the agent in event of loss by the latter\u2019s laches.\nAppeal by plaintiff. Tbe facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.\nL. B. Chapin for plaintiff.\nE. F. Young and N. L. Godwin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0755-01",
  "first_page_order": 803,
  "last_page_order": 805
}