{
  "id": 8659763,
  "name": "R. W. McLEAN et al. v. D. A. McDONALD et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "McLean v. McDonald",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 N.C. 418"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 N. C., 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657183
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661437
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653267
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0389-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4917,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033650996641117
    },
    "sha256": "708791ffb0d49d81514afe8d8703d8e3d6c50e3f80916246276c367cfe53f48f",
    "simhash": "1:e32b4a56fb242f6a",
    "word_count": 898
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:50:36.007196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. W. McLEAN et al. v. D. A. McDONALD et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, 0. J.\nTLe appellee moves to dismiss the appeal upon the following grounds:\n1. That the transcript was not docketed \u201cseven days before entering upon the call of the docket of the district to which it belongs,\u201d as required by Rules 5, 7, and 17 of this Court.\n2. \u201cThe assignments of error are not grouped and separately numbered, immediately before or after the signature to the case on appeal, or elsewhere in the transcript, as required by Rule 19 (2).\u201d\n3. The' appellant failed to \u201cfile brief by 12 o\u2019clock, noon, on Tuesday of the week preceding the call of the district to which the cause belongs,\u201d as required by Rule. 34.\nThis case was tried at September Term, 1917, of Moore, and if not docketed at our last term (as it might have been), it was required under the rule to be docketed at this term, being the first term of this Court beginning after the trial below. Rules 5 and 17 require that,-in order to be heard at this term, the appeal must be docketed \u201cseven days before entering upon the call of the docket of the district to which it belongs.\u201d Rule 17 provides that if not docketed by that time at this term the appellee may file a certificate in the form required by that rule, and have the appeal dismissed. But there is the further provision in Rule 5: \u201cIf not so docketed, the case shall be continued or dismissed under Rule 17, if the appellee files a proper certificate, prior to the docketing of the transcript.\u201d\nIn Triplett v. Foster, 113 N. C., 389, it is held, \u201cA motion to' docket and dismiss an appeal made at the first term after the trial below will not be entertained when the appellant brings up and dockets his transcript at that term before the motion to dismiss.\u201d This case itself cites precedents and the citations thereto are set out in the Annotated Edition. The authorities to this effect are reviewed and reaffirmed in Benedict v. Jones, 131 N. C., 473, and cases cited thereto in the Annotated Edition. In that case it is said: \u201cOf course if the appeal is not docketed till after the termination of the next ensuing term (after the trial), it will be dismissed. Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 277; S. v. James, 108 N. C., 792. The laches of the appellee in not moving to dismiss under Rule 17, as soon as he might, will not authorize the appellant to docket after that term.\u201d The motion of the appellee to dismiss under Rule 17 must, therefore, be denied. It was the appellee\u2019s fault that he did not docket and move to dismiss under Rule 17 before the appellant docketed the transcript at this term. Gupton v. Sledge, 161 N. C., 214, citing Benedict v. Jones, 131 N. C., 473, and Laney v. Mackey, 144 N. C., 630.\nIn Gupton v. Sledge, the Court says: \u201cThe case thus being.docketed, though too late for hearing at this term, a motion to dismiss for failure to print the record and file printed brief cannot avail, as these things are required to be done at the time required before the call for hearing at the next term.\u201d This disposes of the third ground of the appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nFor the same reason we cannot now consider the other ground of his motion that \u201cthe assignments of error are not grouped and separately numbered in the transcript on appeal in accordance with Rule 19 (2).\u201d That is a matter which will come up when the case is regularly reached for argument. At present it is continued under Rule 5, and is not before us. It may be that if there is a defect to this effect, the appellant may take steps to cure the same by a certiorari or otherwise before the ease is reached for argument at next term.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Plaintiffs not represented in this Court.",
      "Ii. F. Seawell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. W. McLEAN et al. v. D. A. McDONALD et al.\n(Filed 24 April, 1918.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Motions\u2014Docket and Dismiss \u2014 Appellee\u2019s Laches.\nWhere the appellant has failed to docket his appeal as required by Rule 5 of the Supreme Court, the right of the appellee to dismiss under Rule 17 must be exercised before the appellant has complied with the rule, and if appellee\u2019s motion is made thereafter his right to dismiss at that term is barred by his own laches.\n2. Same \u2014 Printing\u2014Record\u2014Briefs.\nWhere the appellee has lost his right to docket and dismiss the appellant\u2019s case at the first term of the Supreme Court next ensuing that of the trial, and the appeal goes over to the next term of the Court, a motion by appellee at this term to dismiss for failure to print the record or file printed briefs is premature.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Motions\u2014Docket and Dismiss \u2014 Appellee\u2019s Laches\u2014 Assignment of Error.\nWhere an appeal goes over to the next term of the Supreme Court for failure of appellee to docket and move to dismiss it in time, a motion to dismiss for appellant\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 19 (2) in not properly grouping and numbering his assignments of error, is premature.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Long, J., at September Term, 1917, of Moobe.\nPlaintiffs not represented in this Court.\nIi. F. Seawell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 472,
  "last_page_order": 474
}