{
  "id": 8624426,
  "name": "TAYLOR & FETZER v. R. F. GENTRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Gentry",
  "decision_date": "1926-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "503",
  "last_page": "504",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 503"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 N. C., 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0283-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654178
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0241-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.705179738372588e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5299266482331595
    },
    "sha256": "ec6eb652377fbacbd9fa683eaf54d8238b93cb7d9aec6f1782f9c0dbb7749f2c",
    "simhash": "1:e20c9c37b7262e48",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TAYLOR & FETZER v. R. F. GENTRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff obtained judgment by default final in tbe recorder\u2019s court of tbe town of Reidsville on 13 October, 1925. Tbis was set aside fourteen days thereafter, on motion of tbe defendant, on tbe ground of \u201cmistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,\u201d under O. S., 600. On appeal by tbe plaintiff to tbe Superior Court tbe order setting aside tbe judgment in tbe recorder\u2019s court was affirmed.\nPlaintiff takes two positions: First, that tbe recorder\u2019s court was without authority to entertain tbe motion, and, as tbe Superior Court could exercise derivative jurisdiction only, it was also without authority to decide tbe question. Sewing Machine Co. v. Burger, 181 N. C., 241. Second, that on tbe facts found, tbe defendant is not entitled to have tbe judgment vacated or set aside.\nWithout passing upon tbe merits of tbe first position, we deem it sufficient to say that there is no allegation or finding of a meritorious defense. . It is useless to set aside a judgment where there is no real or substantial defense on tbe merits. Land Co. v. Wooten, 177 N. C., 248; Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 185. \u201cOne who asks to be relieved from a judgment on the ground of excusable neglect must show merit, as otherwise the court would be asked to do the vain thing of setting aside a judgment when it would be its duty to enter again the same judgment on motion of the adverse party.\u201d Allen, J., in Crumpler v. Mines, 174 N. C., 283.\nOn the record, there was error in setting aside the judgment.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. 0. Brown for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel appearing for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TAYLOR & FETZER v. R. F. GENTRY.\n(Filed 10 November, 1926.)\nJudgments \u2014 Pleadings \u2014 Default \u2014 Meritorious Defense \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nAn order of tbe lower court setting aside a judgment by default will be reversed in tbe Supreme Court, when it is not made to appear that tbe defendant bas a meritorious defense.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lane, J., at February Term, 1926, of' ROCKINGHAM.\nMotion to set aside judgment by default final, rendered by tbe recorder\u2019s court of tbe town of Reidsville, 13 October, 1925. Motion allowed by tbe recorder, and tbis ruling was affirmed on appeal to tbe Superior Court at tbe February Term, 1926. Plaintiff appeals.\nJ. 0. Brown for plaintiff.\nNo counsel appearing for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0503-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}