{
  "id": 8651977,
  "name": "MARY WALSH et al. v. ZEB BURLESON et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walsh v. Burleson",
  "decision_date": "1910-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 N.C. 174"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 N. C., 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653148
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661772
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657183
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 840",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0840-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 872",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0872-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 5273,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3945776375379414
    },
    "sha256": "b53babbe9dab5dfa68187fc9b7c6dacc52c524bb499c66f8fc31e5c10ed01082",
    "simhash": "1:1b6d19b4539c25d9",
    "word_count": 964
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:36.957085+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY WALSH et al. v. ZEB. BURLESON et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbis action was tried at July Term, 1910, o\u00a3 Mitcbell. \"When tbe district to *wbieb it belongs was reached at tbis term, tbe appellant moved for a certiorari because tbe ease on appeal bad not been settled by tbe judge without any laches on tbe part of tbe appellant.\nThe uniform bolding of this Court bas been that a certiorari will not be granted in such case unless tbe appellant has docketed the transcript of the record proper as tbe foundation of the motion. S. v. Freeman, 114 N. C., 872; Haynes v. Coward, 116 N. C., 840; Brown v. House, 119 N. C., 622; Shober v. Wheeler, ib., 471; Guano Co. v. Hicks, 120 N. C., 29; Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 277; Norwood v. Pratt, 124 N. C., 745; Worth v. Wilmington, 131 N. C., 532; S. v. Telfair, 139 N. C., 555; Slocumb v. Construction Co., 142 N. C., 350; Pittman v. Kimberly, 92 N. C., 562, and numerous other cases. In Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 279, the Court said: \u201cThere are some matters at least which should be deemed settled, and this is one of them.\u201d That case cites many others, and bas often been cited and approved since.\nTbe only exception to tbe requirement tbat a transcript of tbe record proper must be docketed, as a basis for a certiorari, is tbat when \u201cBy reason of the loss of papers, or for any other good cause, tbe transcript of no part of the record can be docketed at tbe first term of tbe Supreme Court following tbe trial below, tbat fact should appear by affidavit and a certiorari asked for, supplemented by a motion below to supply tbe papers.\u201d Parker v. R. R., 121 N. C., 501, and numerous cases there cited; Norwood v. Pratt, 124 N. C., 747. Tbe mover for tbe certiorari in tbis case filed an affidavit \u201con information and belief,\u201d tbe case being from another county, as an excuse for failure to procure tbe record proper, tbat tbe papers in tbe cause bad been in tbe bands of the judge, and hence a transcript thereof could not be bad from tbe clerk. Upon tbe issuance of tbe certiorari, tbe appellee\u2019s counsel promptly moved to recall tbe writ, setting forth that no notice bad been issued to him tbat the certiorari Avould be asked for; that be had notified appellant\u2019s counsel tbat if sucb motion were made be would oppose it because no transcript of tbe record proper bad been certified to tbis Court, and, further, that the papers in the cause had remained in the clerk\u2019s office all the time, and were still there, and that no appeal bond had been executed. The clerk of the court returned to the certiorari that all the records in the ease had remained in his office ever since the trial, that no fees had ever been paid him for a transcript of the record, nor had any request been made by appellant that he should certify the record proper to the Supreme Court, nor has any appeal bond been given or filed in his office. The judge himself certifies that the papers in the cause had never been in his hands and that he had not settled the case on appeal, but had been forced to delay settlement by reason of not having received said papers. It appears from this that the appellant is without any excuse for not having filed a transcript of the record proper in this Court; that he did not give the appeal bond, and that the delay in settling the case was owing to his not having sent the papers to the judge.\nUnder these circumstances, the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal must be granted. It can make no difference that the case on appeal may have since been settled by the judge. The right to appeal is not an absolute right, but the appellant must comply with conditions, upon which an appeal can be prosecuted. Appellees have rights which must be respected. To permit the case to be docketed now would delay the appellant six months in the argument of his case. A delay of justice may be, and often is, a denial of justice. The appellant did not docket the record in time, and the motion of the appellee to dismiss must be allowed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. G. Avery for plaintiffs.",
      "S. J. Ervin, W. 0. Newland, and M. L. Wilson for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY WALSH et al. v. ZEB. BURLESON et al.\n(Filed 14 December, 1910.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Original Transcript \u2014 Filing\u2014Requisites.\nA motion for certiorari based upon allegation that the Judge had not settled the case on appeal, without laches on the part of appellant, will not ordinarily be granted when the appellant has not caused to be docketed the transcript of the record proper as the foundation for the motion.\n2. Same \u2014 Excusable Neglect \u2014 Clerk\u2019s Fees \u2014 Undertaking\u2014Settled by Judge.\nThe right to appeal is not an absolute right, for the appellant must comply with the conditions prescribed for its prosecution; and when he seeks to excuse his laches in not having the original transcript filed \u201cby reason of lost papers, or for any other good cause,\u201d alleging that the judge had the papers and had not duly settled the case, and it appears by affidavit of the clerk and judge and others that the papers had been permitted to remain in the clerk\u2019s office without payment to him of his fees or filing an appeal bond, the apiieal will be dismissed.\nAppeal by defendants from Pell, J., at the April Term, 1910, of Mitchell.\nOn motion of defendants to recall writ of certiorari and to dismiss the appeal.\nA. G. Avery for plaintiffs.\nS. J. Ervin, W. 0. Newland, and M. L. Wilson for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 216,
  "last_page_order": 218
}