{
  "id": 8657757,
  "name": "ELLEN G. BRADSHAW et al. v. CYNTHIA STANSBERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bradshaw v. Stansberry",
  "decision_date": "1913-09-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "356",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 N.C. 356"
    }
  ],
  "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": "132 N. C., 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661353
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0755-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1390,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.646128968680831e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9272088836067276
    },
    "sha256": "1c8bb083ea2ef9d6a700eb305e7938274b69c332770d235ce69d892f30027ebf",
    "simhash": "1:11fb42cc228d44a9",
    "word_count": 240
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:25.630766+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELLEN G. BRADSHAW et al. v. CYNTHIA STANSBERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal for failure to print the record and briefs in accordance with the rules of this Court is allowed.\nThe number of appeals has been increasing year by year under conditions heretofore existing, and with the additional facilities for trials in the Superior Courts, brought about by four new judicial districts, we may reasonably expect a further increase of from 15 to 20 per cent.\nIt is, therefore, necessary to have rules of procedure and to adhere to them, and if we relax them in favor of one, we might as well abolish them.\nWe have, however, examined the record, and are of opinion no error was committed on the trial. The term \u201csurviving children\u201d in the deed under which the plaintiff claims means children living at the death of the life tenant, and would not include the plaintiff, a grandchild, under Lee v. Baird, 132 N. C., 755.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. L. Travis and J. M. Picot for plaintiff.",
      "Joseph P. Pippen, P. G. Dunn, and Elliott Glarh for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELLEN G. BRADSHAW et al. v. CYNTHIA STANSBERRY.\n(Filed 17 September, 1913.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Failure to Print Record \u2014 Briefs.\nThis appeal is dismissed, under the rule, for failure of appellant to print record and brief, and the importance of observing this rule impressed upon the profession.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Lane, J., at January Term, 1913, of Halifax.\nW. L. Travis and J. M. Picot for plaintiff.\nJoseph P. Pippen, P. G. Dunn, and Elliott Glarh for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0356-01",
  "first_page_order": 392,
  "last_page_order": 392
}