{
  "id": 8629846,
  "name": "L. D. ROEBUCK and Wife, HANNAH ROEBUCK, v. J. J. CARSON and J. L. GURGANUS, Trustee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roebuck v. Carson",
  "decision_date": "1929-10-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "493",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 492"
    }
  ],
  "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": "146 S. E., 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628744
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0672-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S. E., 215",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627907
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S. E., 489",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217893
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217706
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0032-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2713,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2497309110599426e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7813843587019939
    },
    "sha256": "cee25c24b48e3e4466b8866bd424b1fbaf10234d5c9919ece8ab5603dfda1266",
    "simhash": "1:9faf8d05ba71efbe",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. D. ROEBUCK and Wife, HANNAH ROEBUCK, v. J. J. CARSON and J. L. GURGANUS, Trustee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe judge dissolved the restraining order, but found no facts. It does not appear that either party requested a finding of facts. In such cases the determinative principle of law is thus stated in Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., 32. \u201cIn injunction proceedings this Court has the power to find and review the findings of fact on appeal, but the burden is on the appellant to assign and show error, and there is a presumption that the judgment and proceedings in the court below are correct.\u201d Angelo v. Winston-Salem, 193 N. C., 207, 136 S. E., 489; Lineberger v. Cotton Mills, 196 N. C., 506, 146 S. E., 215. The theory upon which these decisions rest is that it is to be presumed, nothing else appearing, that the judge found the proper and necessary facts to support the judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. A. Critcher for plaintiffs.",
      "Elbert S. Peel for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. D. ROEBUCK and Wife, HANNAH ROEBUCK, v. J. J. CARSON and J. L. GURGANUS, Trustee.\n(Filed 2 October, 1929.)\nAppeal and Error J a \u2014 In injunction proceedings Supreme Court may review evidence, but it is presumed that the judgment is correct.\nWhile the Supreme Court may review the evidence and findings of fact by the court below upon appeal in injunction proceedings, the presumption is that the judgment of the lower court is correct, with the burden of showing error on the appellant, nnd where the court does not find the facts and there is no request therefor, it is presumed that he found the proper and necessary facts, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nCivil action, before Moore, Special Judge. From Mabtin. Heard at Chambers 4 May, 1929.\nThis ease was considered by the Court upon a former appeal reported in 196 N. C., 672, 146 S. E., 708. The only difference in the facts in the present case and upon the former appeal is that it is alleged in the present ease that \u201cafter the execution and delivery of the notes and deed of trust . . . there was an agreement- between plaintiffs and defendant Carson as to the extension of time of payment of the notes above referred to; . . . that the defendant Carson promised and agreed that if the plaintiff, L. D. Eoebuck, would pay him the sum of $500 that he (defendant) would extend the time for the payment of the notes above referred to for and during the term of . . . Carson\u2019s natural life,\u201d etc. Plaintiffs secured a temporary restraining order, returnable before Clapton< Moore, Special Judge, on 4 May, 1929.\nUpon hearing the motion, the following judgment was rendered:\n\u201cAfter considering the pleadings the court is of the opinion and doth adjudge that the restraining order heretofore issued be, and the same is hereby dissolved.\u201d\nFrom the foregoing judgment the plaintiffs appealed.\nB. A. Critcher for plaintiffs.\nElbert S. Peel for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 556,
  "last_page_order": 557
}