{
  "id": 8611162,
  "name": "H. H. CASEY v. EAST CAROLINA RAILWAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Casey v. East Carolina Railway",
  "decision_date": "1930-03-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "432",
  "last_page": "433",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 432"
    }
  ],
  "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": "51 S. E., 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 S. E., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658217
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S. E., 342",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N. C., 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 S. E., 237",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270089,
        11270058
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/161/0211-02",
        "/nc/161/0211-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333957017796314e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6297089135312522
    },
    "sha256": "21da7f21fa20dd8d6ab6488ce876549795259e8435ea8fea086d872152e9ed7a",
    "simhash": "1:8a358a377a4fac8b",
    "word_count": 504
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. H. CASEY v. EAST CAROLINA RAILWAY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nThe principal exceptions, upon which the defendant relies, are, first, the refusal of the court to dismiss the action for failure of plaintiff to file a bill of particulars within the time specified, and, second, for refusal to order a compulsory reference on motion of the defendant. Neither assignment of error, based on these exceptions, can be sustained. While the plaintiff was a few days late in filing his bill of particulars, nevertheless it appears that same was filed 21 Eebruary, 1929, and the case was not tried until the October Special Term thereafter, nearly eight months after the date of filing. No harm came to the defendant from this delay.\nNor was there error in overruling the defendant\u2019s motion for a compulsory reference. C. S., 573.\nBut for another reason the judgment must be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. There appears to have been no attempt to make out a concise statement of the case on appeal as required by the rules. The entire evidence is in the form of questions and answers, transcribed from the stenographer\u2019s notes, and the appellee has lodged a motion to dismiss the appeal under authority of Brewer v. Mfg. Co., 161 N. C., 211, 76 S. E., 237; Skipper v. Lumber Co., 158 N. C., 322, 74 S. E., 342; Bucken v. R. R., 157 N. C., 443, 73 S. E., 137; Cressler v. Asheville, 138 N. C., 482, 51 S. E., 53. The motion must be allowed.\nAffirmed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. E. Wallace, J. Paul Frizzelle and P. B. Hines for plaintiff.",
      "John Hill Paylor and L. V. Morrill for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. H. CASEY v. EAST CAROLINA RAILWAY.\n(Filed 5 March, 1930.)\n1. Appeal and Error E c \u2014 Where appellant has failed to malee a concise statement of the evidence required by rules, api>eal will be dismissed.\nWhere the appellant has failed to make a concise statement of the evidence according to'the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, but gives the entire evidence in the form of questions to and answers of the witnesses, taken from the stenographer\u2019s notes, the appeal will be dismissed and the judgment affirmed upon motion of the appellee.\n2. Appeal and Error J e \u2014 Where delay in filing hill of particulars has not prejudiced appellant it will not be held for reversible error.\nA delay of a few days beyond the time ordered to file a bill of particulars will not justify the finding of reversible error on appeal when the bill has been filed for a sufficient time before the trial to make the delay unprejudicial or harmless.\nAppeal by defendant from Lyon, Emergency Judge, at October Special Term, 1929, of G-beeNE.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and for the value of certain crossties delivered under the contract.\nUpon denial of liability and issues joined, both on plaintiff\u2019s cause of action and the defendant\u2019s counterclaim, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nF. E. Wallace, J. Paul Frizzelle and P. B. Hines for plaintiff.\nJohn Hill Paylor and L. V. Morrill for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0432-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}