{
  "id": 8656025,
  "name": "W. H. T. CAUDLE et al. v. MOLLIE MORRIS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Caudle v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1912-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 594"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 N. C., 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657183
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C., 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 711",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C., 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277375
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N. C., 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/33/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N. C., 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273535
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2994121964209363e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6218426248016776
    },
    "sha256": "d6f5fb8a06d9fb34624ae79bb4b94f88d6fb9f512e9cf62021537e6113184ebf",
    "simhash": "1:aa10aabd7d711043",
    "word_count": 756
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. T. CAUDLE et al. v. MOLLIE MORRIS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nBotb parties appealed.\nIn the plaintiffs\u2019 appeal tbe appellant docketed tbe record proper in apt time and asked for a certiorari tbat tbe case on appeal may be settled and sent up. It appearing tbat tbe judge bad failed to settle tbe case without any lacbes on tbe part of tbe appellant, tbe certiorari will issue.\nIn the defendants\u2019 appeal tbe plaintiffs docketed in apt time tbe certificate required under Rule 17 and moved to dismiss defendants\u2019 appeal. Tbe motion was granted. Tbe defendants thereupon moved to reinstate. It appears that the defendants had not docketed the record proper, but they ask for a certiorari and seek to excuse their failure to comply with the rule by the fact that the plaintiffs had docketed their record proper, but they cannot excuse their own negligence by relying upon the diligence of the plaintiff. In Jones v. Hoggard, 107 N. C., 349, it is said: \u201cWhen both parties appeal, a transcript of the record must be sent up for each. This rule cannot be waived by consent of counsel,\u201d citing Perry v. Adams, 96 N. C., 347, which cites Devereux v. Burgwin, 33 N. C., 490; Morrison v. Cornelius, 63 N. C., 346. Jones v. Hoggard has been cited and approved in S. v. Bost, 125 N. C., 711; Mills v. Guaranty Co., 136 N. C., 256; Bank v. Bobbitt, 108 N. C., 535, and in many other eases.\nIf opposite counsel by consent cannot waive the record when both sides appeal, certainly the Court cannot dispense with it when the opposite counsel are here relying upon the failure of the defendants to file their record. As this Court has often held, an appeal is not a matter of absolute right, but the appellant must comply with the statutes and rules of Court as to the time and manner of taking and perfecting his appeal. Just as the right of action is not an absolute one, but a plaintiff must comply with the regulations of orderly procedure by issuing his summons in the statutory time and having it served and filing his complaint in the time and manner prescribed and observing in other respects the requirements as to procedure.\nThe rule of procedure is well settled that when the appeal is not docketed at or before the time prescribed in Eule 5 the appellant must docket all of the record proper, or so much thereof as he can obtain, with an affidavit as to why the entire record cannot be docketed, and move at that time for a certiorari for the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d if without his fault the judge has failed to settle the case, or for such other parts of the record as are lacking. If he fails to do so, the appellee has the right to docket the certificate prescribed by Eule 17 and have the appeal dismissed. Burwell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 277, and cases there cited., and Pittman v. Kimberly, 92 N. C., 562, and the numerous cases citing those two cases which are to be found in the Anno. Ed. In Burwell's case, supra, the Court says: \u201cThere are some matters at least which should be deemed settled, and this is one of them.\u201d Defendants\u2019 motion to reinstate is denied. Walsh v. Burleson, 154 N. C., 174.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. G. Strong for plaintiffs.",
      "Douglass, Lyon & Douglass and R. N. Simms for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. T. CAUDLE et al. v. MOLLIE MORRIS et al.\n(Filed 20 March, 1912.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Failure of Judge to Settle Case \u2014 Certiorari.\nWhen without laches on the part of appellant the judge has failed to settle his case on appeal, a oertiorwri will issue on his motion.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Appeal by Both Parties \u2014 Record as to Each\u2014 Laches.\nWhen both parties to the action appeal, a transcript of the record must be sent up by each, and -one party may not avail himself of the diligence of the other in having his record sent up, by docketing the record of that other party as his own.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Motion to Reinstate \u2014 Laches.\nAVhen an appeal has been dismissed under Rule 17 in the Supreme Court, the appellant, applying for a reinstatement upon the ground that the trial judge has failed to settle the case, must show that he has had his record proper docketed in this Court, as required by the rules, or his motion will be denied.\nAppeal from Peebles, J., at October Term, 1911, from Waxe.\nR. G. Strong for plaintiffs.\nDouglass, Lyon & Douglass and R. N. Simms for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 638,
  "last_page_order": 640
}