{
  "id": 11270089,
  "name": "JUNIE BREWER v. MINEOLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brewer v. Mineola Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "211",
  "last_page": "213",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. 211"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 N. C., 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391191532788205
    },
    "sha256": "f01332f7b8d2d8d69769e56649ef59516dac1a23de87729fc6ce008b6a1ba1c2",
    "simhash": "1:dd05abcc50e9c7c3",
    "word_count": 461
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:28.078438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JUNIE BREWER v. MINEOLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s attorney moves in tbis Court to dismiss tbe appeal and affirm tbe judgment for tbe absence of a properly constituted case on appeal.\nTbe stenographer\u2019s full notes of tbe trial in tbe Superior Court are copied in tbe record. Immediately following them we find tbe following entry: \u201cTbe record, stenographer\u2019s notes, tbe judgment and tbe exception to tbe nonsuit shall constitute tbe case on appeal to tbe Supreme Court.\u201d\nTbis is not signed by either tbe presiding judge or by tbe counsel for tbe plaintiff or defendant. It is repudiated by tbe counsel for tbe defendant in tbis Court, who moves to affirm tbe judgment for lack of a case on appeal. Tbe motion must be allowed.\nThere appears to have been no attempt to make out a case on appeal in conformity with tbe statute. That offered as a case on appeal is neither signed by tbe judge nor by tbe counsel.\nIn this connection we again call tbe attention of tbe profession to what has been said on tbe subject of \u201cCases on Appeal\u201d in Gressler v. Asheville, 138 N. C., 483; Bucken v. R. R., 151 N. C., 444; and in Shipper v. Lumber Co., 158 N. C., 322.\nIn tbe latter case it is held that: \u201cWhen tbe appellant has set out in tbe case on appeal tbe transcribed stenographer\u2019s notes, be fails to prepare a concise statement of tbe case as required by Eevisal, 591, and bis appeal will be dismissed ifnder Eule 22 of tbe Supreme Court when upon examination no error is found in the record proper.\u201d\nAppeal dismissed and judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J ohn A. Barringer, Adams & McLean for plaintiff.",
      "F. P. Hobgood, Jr., for (defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUNIE BREWER v. MINEOLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 November, 1912.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Case on Appeal \u2014 Unsigned Entries of Record\u2014 Stenographer\u2019s Notes \u2014 Concise Statement \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nWhen the stenographer\u2019s full notes of the evidence taken on the trial of a case on appeal are transcribed in the record, immediately followed by an unsigned entry, repudiated by appel-lee\u2019s counsel, that \u201cthe record, stenographer\u2019s notes, the judgment, and the exception to the nonsuit shall constitute the case on appeal to, the Supreme Court,\u201d the case on appeal is not properly constituted in this Court, and, on motion of appellee\u2019s counsel, will he dismissed and the judgment below affirmed. The attention of the profession is again directed to the line of cases holding that a full transcript of the stenographer\u2019s notes of the evidence is not in conformity with the requirements of Re-visal, sec. 591.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Whedbee, J., at August Term, 1912, of GUILFORD.\nCivil action. From a judgment of nonsuit tbe plaintiff appeals.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe per curiam opinion.\nJ ohn A. Barringer, Adams & McLean for plaintiff.\nF. P. Hobgood, Jr., for (defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0211-02",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 257
}