{
  "id": 11270921,
  "name": "J. S. H. CHAUNCEY v. W. W. CHAUNCEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chauncey v. Chauncey",
  "decision_date": "1910-09-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "12",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 12"
    }
  ],
  "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": 137,
    "char_count": 2067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.953181076708474e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42162400201710604
    },
    "sha256": "cfaef7ddb92cd883519b5d6b13c99a60d3fce9cd86bb69b2bf9c9e98e78c4a70",
    "simhash": "1:b6be27d42e2e4cd1",
    "word_count": 353
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. S. H. CHAUNCEY v. W. W. CHAUNCEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nUnder the original C. C. P. the appellant was allowed five days after entry of appeal to serve his case on appeal, and the appellee was allowed three days after such service to serve his exceptions or countercase. By successive amendments this was changed to fifteen days for appellant and ten days to appellee (Rev., 591).\nThe further provision that the appellant, upon receipt of ap-pellee\u2019s exceptions or countercase, should \u201cimmediately\u201d request the judge to fix a time and place for settling the ease on appeal remained unaltered in Revisal, sec. 591. But ch. 312, Laws 1907, have since provided that \u201cif the appellant shall delay longer than fifteen days after the appellee serves his eountercase or exceptions to request the judge to settle the case,\u201d the appellee\u2019s countercase or exceptions shall be taken as correct. The effect of this is to substitute \u201cfifteen days\u201d in lieu of \u201cimmediately\u201d as the time in which the appellant, after receipt of appellee\u2019s exceptions, can make his request to the judge, though it is not expressly so stated.\nThe appellant in this case having made such request to the judge within eleven days after receipt of the appellee\u2019s exceptions, was entitled to have his request granted. This not having been done he is entitled to his certiorari to the end that the judge may now \u201csettle the ease.\u201d\nMotion allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond for plaintiff.",
      "W. C. Rodman for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. S. H. CHAUNCEY v. W. W. CHAUNCEY.\n(Filed 14 September, 1910.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Settling Case \u2014 Request to Judge \u2014 Time Allowed.\nUpon receipt of appellee\u2019s exceptions or countercase, the appellant now has fifteen days in which to request the judge to fix a time and place to settle the case on appeal. Chapter 312, Laws 1907.\n2. Same \u2014 Certiorari\u2014Procedure.\nTiie appellant having requested the judge, in ample time, to settle the case on appeal, he is entitled to a certiorari, to the end that the judge now settle the case.\nMotioN in Supreme Court for certiorari to the end that the trial judge may settle case on appeal. Defendant\u2019s appeal.\nW. M. Bond for plaintiff.\nW. C. Rodman for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0012-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 61
}