{
  "id": 8655930,
  "name": "D. L. MINTON v. J. B. HUGHES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Minton v. Hughes",
  "decision_date": "1912-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "587",
  "last_page": "587",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 587"
    }
  ],
  "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": "42 N. C., 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681858
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/42/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 117,
    "char_count": 1212,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20764762733271322
    },
    "sha256": "06da6ee155ef2e3e084341e0a397943d10cd7819f47e8f6debe827f1b4115762",
    "simhash": "1:64a12897676c8caa",
    "word_count": 207
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. L. MINTON v. J. B. HUGHES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe Court is of opinion in this case that it is unnecessary to consider the question of excusable neglect for which his Honor declined to set aside the judgment in the court below. Not only must the defendant show excusable neglect as defined by many decisions of this Court, but he must also show that he has meritorious defense. Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 189; Turner v. Machine Co., 133 N. C., 384.\nUpon consideration of this feature of the case, we are of the opinion that defendant\u2019s petition and affidavits show no defense to the action which could avail him in law. Pharr v. Russell, 42 N. C., 222.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "JohnE. Vann, Vfinborn & Winborn for plaintiff.",
      "Winston & Matthews for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. L. MINTON v. J. B. HUGHES.\n(Filed 28 February, 1912.)\nMotions \u2014 Judgment Set Aside \u2014 Meritorious Defense \u2014 Practice.\nUpon a motion to set aside a judgment for excusable neglect, a meritorious defen'se must be shown. Revisal, sec. 5l3.\nAppeal from Justice, J., at October Term, 1911, of Heet-fokd.\nA motion to set aside a judgment upon the ground of excusable neglect under section 513 of the Revisal. His Honor declined to set aside the judgment, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nJohnE. Vann, Vfinborn & Winborn for plaintiff.\nWinston & Matthews for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0587-01",
  "first_page_order": 631,
  "last_page_order": 631
}