{
  "id": 8658289,
  "name": "E. R. CAPPS, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Capps v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1921-09-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "758",
  "last_page": "758",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 758"
    }
  ],
  "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": "120 N. C., 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694652
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0412-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20767369062829533
    },
    "sha256": "e25b619baf5dd88f290ef4daf7f7a17f8b7d9fe425a80ca3f7020441820f40e0",
    "simhash": "1:1164ed54808182db",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. R. CAPPS, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nTbe judgment appealed from is as follows: \u201cTbe motion to. dismiss, made by tbe defendant in bis answer, is hereby overruled; and tbe other matters and things set up in tbe pleadings are hereby continued for further consideration by tbe court.\u201d\nTbe uniform decisions of this Court have always been that \u201cno appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss.\u201d McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N. C., 412, down to date, see cases cited under C. S., 638, at p. 278 of vol. 1. If it were otherwise, tbe defendant in every case could always get from 6 to 12 months delay by simply moving to dismiss and appealing from a refusal to do so.\nIt is useless to cite cases, for they are very numerous and without any exception. As this Court has said (as to another point) : \u201cThere are some matters, at least, which should be deemed settled, and this is one of them.\u201d Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 279.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. P. Dickmson for plaintiff.",
      "F. 8. Spruill and Carl S. Davis for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. R. CAPPS, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 14 September, 1921.)\nAppeal .and Error \u2014 Motion to Dismiss.\nAn appeal does not lie from the refusal of a motion to dismiss an action.\nAppeal by defendant from Calvert, J., at May Term, 1921, of WilsoN.\nC. P. Dickmson for plaintiff.\nF. 8. Spruill and Carl S. Davis for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0758-01",
  "first_page_order": 828,
  "last_page_order": 828
}