{ "id": 11271649, "name": "J. J. COOPER et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY", "name_abbreviation": "Cooper v. Board of Commissioners of Franklin County", "decision_date": "1922-09-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "615", "last_page": "616", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. 615" } ], "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": "183 N.'C., 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655876 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 L. R. A., 547", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651429 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649274 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651264 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N. C., 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650019 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/102/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651490 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273500 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N. C., 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272769 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/93/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N. C., 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 841", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 286, "char_count": 3841, "ocr_confidence": 0.475, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.733556171642813e-07, "percentile": 0.8944156589824349 }, "sha256": "5c96528fae9835a9767f925443fb255d548de524caf4b4bcc5dd2dd31198603c", "simhash": "1:f9a17cd8705e465b", "word_count": 689 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:19.408476+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. J. COOPER et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee Cueiam.\n\"When tbe petition to rehear was filed, tbe justices to whom it was referred submitted it to tbe consideration of tbe Court in conference. McGeorge v. Nicola, 173 N. C., 133. Tbe opinion in tbe instant case was filed on 29 March, 1922, and tbe petition to rehear on 16 September, 1922. Tbe petitioners rely upon tbe provision of 0. S., 1419, as to tbe time within which a petition for rehearing may be filed, this section apparently extending tbe time twenty days after tbe commencement of tbe term succeeding that in which tbe opinion is filed. Tbe rules of practice in tbe Supreme Court expressly require petitions for rehearing to be filed within forty days after tbe filing of tbe opinion in tbe case. 174 N. C., 841, Rule 52. In Lee v. Baird, 146 N. C., 363, Hoke, J., said: \u201cThere is no doubt of tbe power of tbe Court to estab-lisb tbe rules in question, and in numbers of decisions we have expressed an opinion both of their necessity and binding force. Thus, in Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 490, Merrimon, J., for the Court, said: \u2018The impression seems to prevail to some extent that the rules of practice prescribed by this Court are merely directory \u2014 that they may be ignored, disregarded, and suspended almost as of course. This is a serious mistake. The Court has ample authority to make them. Const., Art. IV, see. 12; The Code, sec. 691; Rencher v. Anderson, 93 N. C., 105; Barnes v. Easton, 98 N. C., 116. They are deemed essential to the protection of the rights of litigants and the due administration of justice. They have force, and the Court will certainly see that they have effect, and are duly observed whenever they properly apply.\u2019 And in Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 403, the present Chief Justice, in speaking of one of our rules of practice, said: \u2018We have stated this much to show the reasonableness and necessity of the rule, for the power of the Court to make it is as clear as that it is our duty to rigidly adhere to it after it is adopted, and enforce it impartially as to all cases coming under its operation. The late Chief Justice Pearson was accustomed to say of the rules of Court: There is no use of having a scribe unless you cut up to it.\u2019 And the same judge, in Calvert v. Carstarphen, 133 N. C., 27, 28, on this subject, said: \u2018The rules of this Court, are mandatory, not directory.\u2019 Walker v. Scott, 102 N. C., 487; Wiseman v. Comrs., 104 N. C., 330; Edwards v. Henderson, 109 N. C., 83. As the Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, provides that \u2018The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from one another,\u2019 the General Assembly can enact no rules of practice and procedure for this Court, which are prescribed solely by our rules of Court. Herndon v. Ins. Co., 111 N. C., 384; 18 L. R. A., 547; Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400; Rencher v. Anderson, 93 N. C., 105.\u201d The attention of the profession is again called to the fact that the requirement of the rule of practice in the Supreme Court is mandatory in this respect, not merely directory, and must be observed. The petition to rehear is dismissed.\nPetition dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee Cueiam." } ], "attorneys": [], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. J. COOPER et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY.\n(Filed 20 September, 1922.)\n1. Supreme Court \u2014 Rules of Practice \u2014 Petition to Rehear \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nTbe requirement of Rule 52 that petition for rehearing be filed within forty days after the filing of the opinion in the ease is mandatory upon all litigants alike, and will be rigidly enforced.\n2. Same \u2014 Statutes\u2014Conflict\u2014Constitutional Law.\nThe Supreme Court is given, by Article I, section 8, of our Constitution, exclusive power to make its own rules of practice, without legislative authority to interfere, and in case of conflict the rules made by the Court will be observed.\nPetitioN to rehear.\nSee 183 N.'C., 231." }, "file_name": "0615-01", "first_page_order": 671, "last_page_order": 672 }