{
  "id": 8607328,
  "name": "MRS. LILLIE WILLIAMS v. ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Administrator of J. A. WILLIAMS, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1925-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "478",
  "last_page": "479",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 N.C. 478"
    }
  ],
  "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": "189 N. C., 805",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0805-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0728-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.5631665044581806e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3498294688223136
    },
    "sha256": "923c2a29e55707961945d593279bf08eb4f39e9758189b64252d1099090fd8f4",
    "simhash": "1:ad2fdbfc6aa992aa",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672014+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. LILLIE WILLIAMS v. ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Administrator of J. A. WILLIAMS, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "TaRSER, J.\nThis cause was considered by this Court in Williams v. Williams, 188 N. C., 728. The opinion of this Court was certified to the Superior Court of Alleghany County on 7 January, 1925. On Monday, 27 April, 1925, on defendant\u2019s motion, the clerk entered judgment dismissing this action as directed in C. S., 515, and in accordance with the opinion from this Court. There was no exception to this judgment and no appeal therefrom. At May Term, which began Monday, 4 May, 1925, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint. No motion appears of record to set aside the clerk\u2019s judgment- of dismissal, either on the grounds of irregularity, or under' C. S., 600. Under C. S., 515, the plaintiff, within ten days after the opinion of the Supreme , Court has been received by the Superior Court, could have moved, upon three days notice, for leave to amend the complaint. This was not done. In obedience to the ruling of this Court, and in compliance with the provisions of O. S., 515, the judgment was entered dismissing the action. This put an end to the litigation in the Superior Court. Therefore the Superior Court in term time was without power to set aside the judgment in order to allow an amendment to the complaint, and there was no pending cause in which an amended complaint could be filed. Judgments rendered by the clerks of the Superior Court pursuant to C. S., 515, are judgments of the Superior Court and have all the strength and virtue of judgments rendered by the judge thereunder. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 189 N. C., 805. In Caldwell's case, the practice in regard to relief from judgments entered by clerks is clearly indicated.\nTo the end that this action be dismissed let the judgment appealed from be\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "TaRSER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. C. Bowie, R. F. Grouse for plaintiff.",
      "Boughton & Higgins for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. LILLIE WILLIAMS v. ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Administrator of J. A. WILLIAMS, Jr.\n(Filed 12 November, 1925.)\n1. Judgments \u2014 Clerks of Court \u2014 Statutes.\nTbe judgments of tbe clerk of tbe court rendered witbin tbe authority given bim by statute, C. S., 515, are judgments of tbe Superior Court, and bave tbe same effect as those rendered by tbe judge, and when not appealed from, are final and conclusive.\n2. Same \u2014 Superior Courts \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Amendments\u2014Jurisdiction.\nTbe Superior Court judge in term has no authority to allow an amendment to tbe complaint, in an action which has proceeded to final judgment before tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court, rendered witbin bis statutory jurisdiction, C. S., 515, and not appealed from.\n3. Same \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Motions\u2014Nptice.\nIf tbe plaintiff desires to amend bis complaint after an adverse opinion of tbe Supreme Court on appeal affirming tbe order of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court in dismissing tbe action, be must give notice thereof witbin three days after tbe opinion has been received by \u201cthe Superior Court. C. S., 515.\nAppeal by defendant from Allegi-iaNY Superior Court. Schench, J.\nMotion by plaintiff to set aside judgment of tbe clerk, and to allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Motion allowed and defendant appeals.\nReversed.\nThe defendant assigns error as follows: (a) That the judgment of the clerk dismissing the action was regular and in compliance with the statute (O. S., 515); and (b) no appeal haring been taken from the clerk\u2019s judgment the cause had been finally adjudicated and the parties were not coram judice; (c) that the judgment of the clerk was in effect a denial of plaintiff\u2019s right to amend.\nThe exception to the judgment is the only exception.\nT. C. Bowie, R. F. Grouse for plaintiff.\nBoughton & Higgins for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0478-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 583
}