{
  "id": 11270541,
  "name": "POPE & BALLANCE v. RIGHTER-PARRY LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pope v. Righter-Parry Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-05-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 N.C. 208"
    }
  ],
  "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., 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656025
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273535
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N. C., 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C., 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N. C., 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2162,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3236590241361562
    },
    "sha256": "9c1ff5ade963ed56db48950ec18f82ea28ff62ca90195bffe760485c9befa933",
    "simhash": "1:6566ee6b16f43f81",
    "word_count": 370
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:37.824965+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "POPE & BALLANCE v. RIGHTER-PARRY LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J\".\nThe appellant, E. W. McCurdy, presents the same point upon another note in the same cause of Pope v. Lumber Co., above decided. The only difference is as to the amount of the note, which is $1,000.\nWe note that separate records were sent up in these two appeals. This was an unnecessary expense, as the appeals are in the same cause and present exactly the same question. Though, of course, both parties should appeal. If not, the judgment is suspended only as to the one which appeals (Rollins v. Love, 97 N. C., 210); yet it was not necessary to send up separate records.\nIt is true that where both \u201cparties\u201d appeal, a transcript of the record must be sent up by each appellant, and the appeals must be docketed separately as distinct cases. This rule cannot be waived by consent of counsel, and unless there are separate records, tbe case will not be beard. Morrison v. Cornelius, 63 N. C., 340; Perry v. Adams, 96 N. C., 347; Jones v. Hoggard, 107 N. C., 349; Caudle v. Morris, 158 N. C., 594. But tbis applies where both tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant appeal, and therefore present different exceptions, or where tbe parties appealing, though on the same side, present distinct questions or are antagonistic to each other. It does not apply to this case, where the appellants are not antagonistic and present exactly the same question. However, it has worked no harm to send up two records beyond the unnecessary expense.\nUpon the ruling in Sherron\u2019s appeal in this case we find in McCurdy\u2019s appeal also,\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J\"."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clifford & Townsend, for plcdntijfs.",
      "iSinclair <& Bye for F. W. McCurdy, intervenor."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "POPE & BALLANCE v. RIGHTER-PARRY LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 May, 1913.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Two Appellants \u2014 When Two Records Are Unnecessary \u2014 Practice.\nWhere there are two appeals by different parties in the same cause and on the same side, presenting exactly the same question, and they are not antagonistic to each other, only one record is required. Though sejmrate records are sent up, it is, however, immaterial except as to unnecessary expense.\nAppeal by F. W. McCurdy, intervenor, from Ferguson, J., at November Term, 1912, of Harnett.\nClifford & Townsend, for plcdntijfs.\niSinclair <& Bye for F. W. McCurdy, intervenor."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 253
}