{
  "id": 8626890,
  "name": "WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY v. L. F. KLUTZ et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz",
  "decision_date": "1928-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 358"
    }
  ],
  "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": "56 S. E., 479",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S. E., 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659724
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S. E., 999",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0062-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.485284353322388e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8080009683962269
    },
    "sha256": "08cfea527af288ffb51c0100ed6cf2644c5fb88af95151d865a2f8bb7c41fb8f",
    "simhash": "1:2eaa126436e1820b",
    "word_count": 410
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY v. L. F. KLUTZ et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nEven if it be conceded that the present proceeding cannot properly be consolidated for trial with the three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County as petitioner alleges \u2014 which question is not presented and therefore not decided \u2014 still the motion to remove, on the grounds stated, \u201cfor the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice,\u201d 0. S., 470, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. Perry v. Perry, 172 N. C., 62, 89 S. E., 999; Byrd v. Spruce Co., 170 N. C., 429, 87 S. E., 241; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23, 56 S. E., 479.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. H. Burke, R. S. Hutchison and W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson, Jr., for petitioner.",
      "Clyde Hoey and Manming & Manning for respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY v. L. F. KLUTZ et al.\n(Filed 12 December, 1928.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Review\u2014Discretionary Order of Judge Changing Venue Not Re viewable.\nThe transfer of a cause from the court of one county to another in the discretion of the trial judge for the convenience of witnesses and to promote justice, C. S., 470, is not reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court.\n2. Venue \u2014 Changing Venue \u2014 Discretionary Power of Judge to Change Venue.\nWhen the trial judge in the proper exercise of his discretion under C. S., 470, has transferred a cause from one county to another for trial, the question of his ultimate purpose to consolidate the cause with other like cases does not arise on appeal to the Supreme Court.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Schenck, J., at Yadkinville, 16 May, 1928, from ALEXANDER.\nSpecial proceeding instituted in the Superior Court of Alexander County to condemn land for the development of hydroelectric plant.\nThe cause was removed to Catawba County for trial, upon motion of counsel for respondents, the same being allowed by the court \u201cin the exercise of its sound discretion, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by C. S., 470,\u201d as set out in the judgment.\nPetitioner appeals, assigning error, in that the only purpose for removing said proceeding, either alleged or found by the court, was to permit a subsequent consolidation and trial with three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County, with respect to land on the opposite bank of the same stream, which petitioner alleges would be an improper consolidation.\nJ. H. Burke, R. S. Hutchison and W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson, Jr., for petitioner.\nClyde Hoey and Manming & Manning for respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}