{
  "id": 8656044,
  "name": "E. L. HOBBS et al. v. GEORGE W. CASHWELL et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hobbs v. Cashwell",
  "decision_date": "1912-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "597",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 597"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 N. C., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N. C., 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/153/0419-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1658,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1681480220048804e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5856741068687789
    },
    "sha256": "516ad4be9dfaca621f374afb7c22ee61a32a2bf29946151090b01516cedd6c25",
    "simhash": "1:97b705c26bacbbc5",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. L. HOBBS et al. v. GEORGE W. CASHWELL et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiffs move, under Eule 20 of the Supreme Court, to dismiss this appeal upon the grounds that in the record the \u201cproceedings are not set forth in the order of time in which they occurred, and so as to follow each other in the order in which same took place, as required by Eule 19, section 1.\u201d\n2. For that the appellant has not set out in the case on appeal his exceptions, briefly and clearly stated and numbered, as prescribed by Eules 27 and 19, section 2. Jones v. R. R., 153 N. C., 419; Davis v. Wall, 142 N. C., 452.\nUpon examination of the record in this case, we are of opinion that under the rules of the Supreme Court the plaintiffs\u2019 motion must be allowed. We have, however, examined the record and assignments of error and find no error of sufficient importance to warrant the ordering of another trial.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Faison & Wright for the plaintiffs.",
      "O. M. Faircloth and John D. Kerr, Sr., for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. L. HOBBS et al. v. GEORGE W. CASHWELL et al.\n(Filed 13 March, 1912.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Exceptions Grouped, etc. \u2014 Record\u2014Order of Proceedings.\nThis appeal is dismissed upon, appellee\u2019s motion, for the failure of appellant to set forth the proceedings in the order they occurred, etc., Rule 20; and his exceptions properly grouped and numbered as required by 27 and 19 (2).\nAppeal from Peebles, J., at May Term, 1911, of SampsoN.\nThis case was before tbis Court at a previous term, and is reported in 152 N. C., page 183. The case was retried at May Term, 1911, of the Superior Court of Sampson County. There was a verdict upon the issues and a judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendants appealed.\nFaison & Wright for the plaintiffs.\nO. M. Faircloth and John D. Kerr, Sr., for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 641
}