{
  "id": 11252440,
  "name": "E. J. GODWIN et als. v. B. H. JERNIGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Godwin v. Jernigan",
  "decision_date": "1917-09-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "76",
  "last_page": "76",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 N.C. 76"
    }
  ],
  "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": "99 N. C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658652
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271332
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660212
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271660
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653579
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0515-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2466,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388784828768009
    },
    "sha256": "8fe22a22e3c516c26c9ca9c7f3486effb6c75c408bdb4c61799ee1b16d59d75f",
    "simhash": "1:56d988c200daba48",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. J. GODWIN et als. v. B. H. JERNIGAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbis cause was tried in tbe recorder\u2019s court of Dunn. \u2022On appeal, there was a compulsory reference. On tbe filing of tbe referee\u2019s report, 8 November, 1915, exceptions were filed by tbe defendant thereto, but no issues were formulated to secure a jury trial, as required under our practice. Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515; Ogden v. Land Co., 146 N. C., 443. On 16 June, 1916, tbe defendant filed tbe issues, but without leave of court. Tbis was too late.\nUpon the bearing of the exceptions to the referee\u2019s report at February Term, 1917, the defendant demurred ore tenus, and for the first time, upon the ground that there was misjoinder'of parties and a mis-joinder of causes of action. Tbis objection was not interposed in the recorder\u2019s court nor in the Superior Court, either by answer or demurrer. Revisal, 478, provides: \u201cIf no such objection (for misjoinder or other objection appearing upon the face of the complaint) be taken either by demurrer or answer, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived the same, excepting only the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, and the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.\u201d Tbe demurrer ore tenus therefore also came too late. Cooper v. Express Co., 165 N. C., 538; Kochs v. Jackson, 156 N. C., 326; Hocutt v. R. R., 124 N. C., 214; Mining Co. v. Smelting Co., 99 N. C., 462, and citations in Pell\u2019s Revisal to section 478.\nTbe exceptions to tbe referee\u2019s report were to tbe findings, of fact, and tbe action of tbe judge in overruling such exceptions is not reviewable when, as here, there is evidence. Pell\u2019s Revisal, 525, and citations.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clifford & Townsend for plaintiffs.",
      "R. L. Godwin and E. F. Young for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. J. GODWIN et als. v. B. H. JERNIGAN.\n(Filed 19 September, 1917.)\n1. Reference \u2014 Exceptions\u2014Trial by Jury \u2014 Issues\u2014Waiver.\nA party who has excepted to a compulsory reference and to the report of the referee must also file the issues upon which he demands a trial by jury; and when he does so after the report has been filed and received, without leave of court, it is too late to preserve the right to a jury.\n2. Actions \u2014 Misjoinder'\u2014Pleadings\u2014Demurrer Ore Tenus.\nObjection to the misjoinder of liarties or of causes of action must be taken by answer or demurrer in the trial court, or the objection is waived. Rev., 478.\nAppeal by defendant from Stacy, J., at February Special Term, 1917, of HaRNETT.\nClifford & Townsend for plaintiffs.\nR. L. Godwin and E. F. Young for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0076-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 132
}