{ "id": 8653949, "name": "J. T. SHEPHERD v. J. RUFUS SHEPHERD et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Shepherd v. Shepherd", "decision_date": "1920-12-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "494", "last_page": "496", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "180 N.C. 494" } ], "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": "159 N. C., 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/159/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649784 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N. C., 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660157 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658572 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654178 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269982 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 N. C., 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273313 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662451 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659155 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651439 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N. C., 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8692344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/76/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N. C., 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683342 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/64/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270350 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 361, "char_count": 5617, "ocr_confidence": 0.453, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.39457918202953146 }, "sha256": "8652cb01ba5daed1d275d52fdbb8c2f4da621eb5167823469da8d925735d0595", "simhash": "1:608834b1d22205c2", "word_count": 1009 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. T. SHEPHERD v. J. RUFUS SHEPHERD et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "\"Walker, J.,\nafter stating the case: As the judge found as a fact that plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment only upon the ground of excusable neglect, nothing else is before us. It is so palpable that plaintiff was guilty of inexcusable neglect, that it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence and the findings. The plaintiff obtained possession of the car under the claim and delivery proceedings and seemed to think that nothing more was required to be done by him. He filed no complaint, and did not attend court to look after his case, but left it to take care of itself, having completely abandoned it. He did retain an attorney, but one who resided in another county, and who did not attend the court at the term he knew the case had been calendared for trial. Jernigan v. Jernigan, 119 N. C., 237, and cases cited. There was evidence that he stated to a witness that if anything more was done in the case it must be done by some one else, as he was not going to do anything. It is no wonder that his Honor, upon the evidence, found that plaintiff had been negligent without any excuse for it, as it appears to have been a case of gross negligence. We have often held that a party to a suit in court should give it such attention and care as a man of ordinary prudence usually bestows upon his important business. McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122; Waddell v. Wood, 64 N. C., 624; Sluder v. Rollins, 76 N. C., 271; Roberts v. Allman, 106 N. C., 391; Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C., 312; Manning v. R. R., 122 N. C., 824; Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 185; Lumber Co. v. Cottingham, 173 N. C., 323; Land Co. v. Wooten, 177 N. C., 248. A recent case much in point is Jernigan v. Jernigan, supra, which we have already cited for another purpose.\nIf defendant intended to insist on the ground that the judgment was irregular, he should have made it known, or, at least, should distinctly have excepted at the time, because the judge did not consider it or find the facts in regard to it. An assignment of error not based upon an exception duly and properly taken is not sufficient. The preparation of the assignment of error is the work of the attorney for the appellant, and is not a part of the case on appeal; and its office is to group the exceptions noted in the case on appeal; and if there is an assignment of error not supported by an exception, it will be disregarded. Worley v. Logging Co., 157 N. C., 490; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., at p. 124; Harrison v. Dill, 169 N. C., 542-544. If a party desires any special facts to be found, he should request it; otherwise, we presume the judge found sucb facts as will support tbe judgment. Albertson v. Terry, 108 N. C., 75; Hardware Co. v. Buhmann, 159 N. C., 511; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., at p. 124.\nTbe plaintiff bas lost bis rights, if be bad any, by bis own lacbes, and bas bimself to blame for tbe result.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "\"Walker, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. C. Sedberry and B. T. Poole for plaintiff.", "J. A. Spence for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. T. SHEPHERD v. J. RUFUS SHEPHERD et al.\n(Filed 1 December, 1920.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Record\u2014Eindings\u2014Judgments\u2014Motions.\nIn passing upon an appeal from the refusal of tbe Superior Court judge to set aside a judgment, bis finding that tbe motion was solely based upon excusable neglect will preclude tbe further ground that tbe judgment was not regularly entered.\n2. Judgments \u2014 Motions\u2014Excusable Neglect.\nIt is inexcusable and gross neglect for a plaintiff to take out claim and delivery in bis action, fail to file bis complaint, and permit a judgment by default to be taken against bim according to tbe course and practice of tbe courts; and bis motion to set aside tbe judgment for excusable neglect therein will be denied.\n8. Appeal and Error \u2014 Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Judgments\u2014Motions\u2014 Irregular Judgments \u2014 Evidence\u2014Eindings.\n. Exception to tbe refusal of tbe Superior Court judge to consider tbe evidence on a motion to set aside a judgment, relating to its having been irregularly entered, or to grant tbe motion on that ground, should be taken at that time, with request that tbe judge find tbe necessary facts.\n4. Appeal and Error \u2014 Assignments of Error \u2014 Exceptions\u2014Attorney and Client.\nIt is necessary that assignments of error be based upon exceptions duly taken and in apt time, which it is tbe duty of appellant\u2019s attorneys to do, and an assignment of error not based upon an exception will not be considered on appeal.\nAppeal from Lane, J., at July Term, 1920, of MoNtgomekt.\nThis is a motion to set aside a judgment for excusable neglect. Tbe original motion was also based on another ground, it being that the judgment was irregularly taken, having been rendered contrary to the course and practice of the court, but the judge finds as a fact that at the hearing the only ground alleged was excusable neglect. He found the facts and refused to set aside the judgment.\nThe action .was brought by the plaintiff to recover a five-passenger Overland automobile, and under claim and delivery proceedings the car was taken from the defendants and delivered to the plaintiff, who filed no complaint and paid no further attention to the case. Defendants answered by setting up a counterclaim based on false representations as to the condition of the car, and false warranty. Issues were submitted to the jury, and they found that plaintiff did not own the car; that he had made the false and fraudulent representations which deceived the defendants and induced\" them to exchange a mare with buggy and harness and $250 \u201cas boot,\u201d for the car, and assessed tbeir damages at $305. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, and plaintiff appealed.\nJ. C. Sedberry and B. T. Poole for plaintiff.\nJ. A. Spence for defendants." }, "file_name": "0494-01", "first_page_order": 552, "last_page_order": 554 }