{
  "id": 8654528,
  "name": "WILSON GREENE et al. v. MRS. SALLIE GREENE LYLES et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greene v. Lyles",
  "decision_date": "1924-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "599",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 N.C. 598"
    }
  ],
  "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., 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658795
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271649
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0615-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3794070619561218
    },
    "sha256": "1e8393fda8ec46f98db615651f16da844c327d619839d08a03e48b434c4b89f6",
    "simhash": "1:4a3a9a1fd69f6dba",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:52.896945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILSON GREENE et al. v. MRS. SALLIE GREENE LYLES et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nThe petition to rehear was submitted to the Court in conference by the Justices to whom it was referred. Cooper v. Comrs., 184 N. C., 615.\nThe petition is not based on any allegation of error in the opinion as filed, but upon the ground that exception No. 2, noted on the record, was not considered or dealt with in the. opinion of the Court. This exception was to that portion of the judgment directing a sale of the land through a commissioner. See Tayloe v. Carrow, 156 N. C., 6, and Ledbetter v. Pinner, 120 N. C., 455.\nThe exception was not mentioned in the opinion because it was not brought forward in appellant\u2019s brief, and was therefore abandoned by her. \u201cExceptions in the record not set out in appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him.\u201d Eule 28, 185 N. C., p. 798. The appeal presented no objection to that portion of the judgment directing a sale of the land.\nPut in no event would the appellees be entitled to have this exception considered by filing a petition to rehear. They did not appeal from the judgment, and the appellant abandoned the exception relating to the order of sale. Error having been found in the judgment below, the case goes back for judgment in accordance with the opinion as certified to the Superior Court.\nThe petition must be denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. & Thomas Ruffin for petitioners.",
      "B. L. Fentress and Roberson, Jerome & Haworth for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILSON GREENE et al. v. MRS. SALLIE GREENE LYLES et al.\n(Filed 16 April, 1924.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Rehearing-\u2014Briefs\u2014Rule of Court \u2014 Waiver\u2014Judgments.\nA petition to rehear in the Supreme Court will be denied when founded upon the ground that a certain question was not mentioned in the opinion, when it had not been discussed in movant\u2019s brief according to Rule 28, and he has not appealed from the judgment.\nPetitioN by appellees to rehear this case, decided 19 March, 1924, and reported ante, 422.\nWilliam H. & Thomas Ruffin for petitioners.\nB. L. Fentress and Roberson, Jerome & Haworth for appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 669
}