{
  "id": 11269825,
  "name": "JAMES W. SNEEDEN v. JAMES J. DARBY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sneeden v. Darby",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 274"
    }
  ],
  "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": "171 N. C., 837",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272604,
        11272589
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0837-02",
        "/nc/171/0837-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 4799,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.11231588610629e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4679579774728179
    },
    "sha256": "8c2ce4a713178c28fe0614063a5109d52e4d020e1b0ad76be6a9561682e8c38d",
    "simhash": "1:dc2a43f8959b3ead",
    "word_count": 845
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES W. SNEEDEN v. JAMES J. DARBY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Allen, J.\nThe act establishing the recorder\u2019s court in Wilmington, chapter 389 of Public Laws of 1909, as amended by chapter 217 of the Public Laws of 1911, provides that \u201cAny person desiring to appeal to the Superior Court in a criminal or civil case from a judgment of the recorder\u2019s court shall be allowed to do so in the same manner as is now provided for appeals from the courts of justices of the peace\u201d; and section 608 of the Revisal requires an appeal from a justice to the Superior Court to be docketed \u201cat the ensuing term of said court.\u201d\nIt has been -frequently held that a failure to comply with this provision of the statute and to docket the appeal at the ensuing term entitles the party recovering judgment to dismiss the appeal.\nThe latest case on this question is Helsabeck v. Grubbs, 171 N. C., 837.\nIt follows, therefore, that there is no error in dismissing the appeal, as the defendant has never docketed his appeal in the Superior Court.\nThe provision of the statute relied on by the defendant, saying that \u201cAll judgments for the plaintiff rendered by the recorder shall be duly docketed in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court, and execution shall be issued thereon as is now provided by law for executions,\u201d does not refer to proceedings connected with the appeal, but to the docketing of the judgment for the purposes of lien and execution.\nThe judgment against the sureties on the stay bond is also- authorized under section 607 of the Revisal, which provides; \u201cThat if the appellant shall fail to have his appeal docketed as required by law, the ap-pellee may, at the term of said court next succeeding the term to which the appeal is taken, have the case placed upon the docket, and upon motion the jugment of the justice shall be affirmed and judgment rendered against the appellant accordingly, and for the costs of appeal and against his sureties upon the undertaking, if there be any, according to the conditions thereof.\u201d\nIt is probable that the defendant was not more diligent because he did not hope to reduce the amount recovered before the recorder, as it is stated in the judgment in that court that the plaintiff submitted to the defendant an account showing $235.63 due him, and that this was not denied by the defendant, and that the claim of the defendant against the plaintiff for $43.51 was allowed, leaving a balance of $192,12, for which judgment was rendered.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Allen, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. C. 'King and L. Clayton Grant for plaintiff.",
      "J. 0. Carr for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES W. SNEEDEN v. JAMES J. DARBY.\n(Filed 4 April, 1917.)\nAppeal \u2014 Recorder\u2019s Court \u2014 Justice\u2019s Court \u2014 Dismissal of Appeal \u2014 Judgment \u2014Stay Bond \u2014 Costs\u2014Statutes.\nWhere a defendant appeals a judgment rendered against him in a recorder\u2019s court, under a statute prescribing the same methods as from a court of a justice of the peace, and fails to have it .docketed in the Superior Court at the next ensuing term, etc., the plaintiff may have the appeal docketed and dismissed upon motion, and the judgment in the lower court affirmed (Rev., sec. 608), and tax the defendant and his surety on his stay bond with the costs of appeal, according to the conditions thereof. Revisal, sec. 607.\nCivil actioN, tried before Connor, J., at November Term, 1916, of New Haktover.\nThis is a civil action begun 25 May, 1916, by summons issued from the recorder\u2019s court of New Hanover County at the instance of the plaintiff, to recover money alleged to be due him by the defendant for labor performed. Judgment was duly rendered on 8 July, 1916, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $192.12, from which the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Superior Court. The next term of the Superior Court of New Hanover County after the rendition of said judgment was held on 11 September, 1916, which was \u201cfor the trial of criminal cases only,\u201d and at the succeeding term of the Superior Court of said county, which was for the trial of civil cases only, defendant having failed up to that time to have said appeal docketed on his own behalf, on 27 October, 1916, which was the fifth day of said term, plaintiff caused said appeal to' be docketed, and paid the fees therefor, for the purpose of moving for the dismissal of the same, under section 607 of the Revisal of 1905. Thereupon judgment was rendered in the Superior Court, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the recorder, and also against the surety upon the stay bond.\nThe defendant excepted and appealed upon the ground that the docketing of the judgment in the Superior Court was a docketing for the purpose of the appeal, and that no further action was required to perfect the appeal, and also upon the ground that the court could not dismiss the appeal and at the same time enter judgment upon the stay bond.\nJ. C. 'King and L. Clayton Grant for plaintiff.\nJ. 0. Carr for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 333
}