{
  "id": 11271908,
  "name": "R. Q. BROWN v. S. C. TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "700",
  "last_page": "700",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 700"
    }
  ],
  "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": "112 N. C., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651738
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0694-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1622,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391355635019648
    },
    "sha256": "2feab2943205109a8e302c65212f2abe449f4901a0f7e676d323a59351ef05e2",
    "simhash": "1:9c9cb92cd982ec63",
    "word_count": 284
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. Q. BROWN v. S. C. TAYLOR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe plaintiff moves in this Court to strike out from tbe record the case on appeal on the ground that it was not served in time, and to affirm the judgment. The defendant moves for a certiorari in order that the case on appeal may be settled, and filed affidavits showing an agreement of one of the counsel for the plaintiff extending the time for service of case on appeal.\nNo affidavit of counsel with whom the agreement is alleged to have been made has been filed.\nThe motion of the plaintiff is denied and the motion for a certiorari is allowed because, while we will not pass on affidavits and determine whether an oral agreement which is denied has been made we do consider affidavits showing an agreement, which are uncontradicted. Sondley v. Asheville, 112 N. C., 694.\nThe plaintiff is allowed twenty days after this opinion is certified to the Superior Court to serve his case on appeal, or exceptions to the defendants\u2019 case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. 8. O\u2019B. Robinson & Son for plaintiff.",
      "Langston, Allen & Taylor, and Stevens & Beasley for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. Q. BROWN v. S. C. TAYLOR.\n(Filed 28 February, 1917.)\nAppeal and Error- \u2014 Service of Case \u2014 Extension of Time \u2014 Written Agreement \u2014Unanswered Affidavit.\nThe ruling that a certiorari will not he allowed in the Supreme -Court to bring up a record on the ground that the agreement to extend the time for serving case was not reduced to writing, has no application where the applicant files his aflidavit to the effect that the time had been extended and the case served therein, and it is not denied by counter affidavit; and motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied.\nW. 8. O\u2019B. Robinson & Son for plaintiff.\nLangston, Allen & Taylor, and Stevens & Beasley for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0700-01",
  "first_page_order": 758,
  "last_page_order": 758
}