{
  "id": 11272130,
  "name": "E. L. JENKINS v. C. S. CARSON et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenkins v. Carson",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "725",
  "last_page": "726",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 725"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "sha256": "11fe96166ea9c85171583e3e6231965aae2ff2e2a426155896089771d3279e9b",
    "simhash": "1:51122026182f646c",
    "word_count": 273
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. L. JENKINS v. C. S. CARSON et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR OuRiam.\nThere is no case on appeal in this record of which we can take notice. There is a paper purporting to be a case prepared and signed by defendants\u2019 attorneys, but it does not appear to have been served on the plaintiff or his counsel, or even tendered. There is no acceptance of service, and no return of an officer as to service, and no other compliance with statutory requirements. Revisal, sec. 591. We have beld tbat there must be strict, or at least substantial, compliance with the statute. Pell\u2019s Revisal, pp. 591, 592, and cases cited. There are no assignments of errors based upon exceptions. The charge of the court, though exceptions were taken to it, is not in the paper assumed to be a case. Plaintiff has not appeared in this Court or filed a brief.\nBut notwithstanding these irregularities, we have examined the record, and the statements and exceptions contained in the case prepared for tender to the plaintiff, and find no substantial or reversible error. -The case appears to have been properly tried on its legal merits.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR OuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whitney & Whitney for defendant.",
      "No counsel for plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. L. JENKINS v. C. S. CARSON et als.\n(Filed 9 May, 1917.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Settlement of Case \u2014 Statutes.\nRevisal; sec. 591, prescribing the manner of service and settlement of cases on appeal to the Supreme Court must he strictly or at least substantially complied with, or the case may be dismissed. The Court examined the record in this appeal and found no substantial or reversible error.\nCivil agtiow, tried before Cline, J., at January Term, 1917, of GastoN.\nWhitney & Whitney for defendant.\nNo counsel for plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0725-01",
  "first_page_order": 783,
  "last_page_order": 784
}