{
  "id": 8621594,
  "name": "BOARD OF ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Road Commissioners v. Board of Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1927-12-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "818",
  "last_page": "819",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 818"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 N. C., 797",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255587
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0797-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2056,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20721516968749915
    },
    "sha256": "c98b20ddee91d4f066a8809e8052506409dbbf25bead41e7a77ca2307b6f5ada",
    "simhash": "1:8b67d6e6b6236665",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BOARD OF ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CueiaM.\nTbis action arises ont of a controversy between plaintiff and defendant as to tbe amount of money required for tbe construction and maintenance of tbe public roads of Transylvania County, for tbe year 1927-28. Botb plaintiff and defendant filed affidavits to be considered on tbe bearing before tbe judge, sustaining tbeir respective contentions as to tbe facts involved in tbe controversy. Tbe judge, however, bas found no facts upon wbicb to base bis judgment. Serious questions of law are discussed in tbe briefs filed in tbis Court, some of wbicb, at least, do not seem to be raised by tbe record. We cannot proceed to \u201ca consideration of these questions of law, in tbe absence of a finding by tbe judge of tbe facts involved in tbe controversy. Britt v. Board of Canvassers, 172 N. C., 797. There was no error in tbe denial by tbe judge of defendant\u2019s demand for a trial by jury, but tbis being an action for a writ of mandamus tbe judge should find tbe facts and embody bis findings in bis judgment.\nTbe action is, therefore, remanded to tbe Superior Court of Transylvania County, to tbe end that tbe facts involved in tbe controversy may be found, and made to appear properly in tbe record. It is so ordered.\nEemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. E. Breece and Bless, Winborne, Bless & Broctor for plaintiff.",
      "Ralph Fisher for defendant. \u2022"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BOARD OF ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY et al.\n(Filed 21 December, 1927.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Mandamus\u2014Record\u2014Findings of Fact \u2014 Remand.\nSufficient facts must appear of record in appeal in proceedings for mandamus.\nAppeal by defendant from Schencle, J'., at Chambers, 3 September, 1927.\nRemanded.,\nAction for writ of mandamus, to compel defendant board to levy a tax sufficient to raise the amount of the budget filed with defendant board by plaintiff, for the construction and maintenance of public roads in Transylvania County during the ensuing year.\nFrom judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nW. E. Breece and Bless, Winborne, Bless & Broctor for plaintiff.\nRalph Fisher for defendant. \u2022"
  },
  "file_name": "0818-01",
  "first_page_order": 886,
  "last_page_order": 887
}