{
  "id": 8614392,
  "name": "SCOTT DRUG COMPANY v. MRS. N. A. PATTERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott Drug Co. v. Patterson",
  "decision_date": "1930-04-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "548",
  "last_page": "549",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 548"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 S. E., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 711",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0711-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S. E., 521",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624607
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0105-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.716929418925291e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49364325873825077
    },
    "sha256": "97770f60f261b4538ee6a242139f9da87bf2adccedcc836e7051fea0af5779a7",
    "simhash": "1:3c03c910ee1f13a6",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SCOTT DRUG COMPANY v. MRS. N. A. PATTERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe order of removal was improvidently entered. This part of the judgment will be stricken out. Turnage v. Dunn, 196 N. C., 105, 144 S. E., 521; Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711, 138 S. E., 1.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appearing for plaintiff.",
      "H. A. Whitfield and Gattis & Gattis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SCOTT DRUG COMPANY v. MRS. N. A. PATTERSON.\n(Filed 2 April, 1930.)\nVenue C a \u2014 Removal of receivership action from county of defendant\u2019s residence for creditoi*s\u2019 convenience is erroneous.\nWhere an action in the nature of a creditors\u2019 bill and for the appointment of a receiver is brought in the county wherein the defendant resides, and a temporary receiver is therein appointed, upon the hearing at chambers in another county wherein the temporary receivership is made permanent, an order removing the cause to the county of the hearing for the convenience of a large number of creditors is improvidently made, and that part of the judgment will be stricken out on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Hams, J., at January Term, 1930, of ORANGE. \u2018f\nCivil action in the nature of a creditors\u2019 bill and for the appointment of a receiver.\nThe action was instituted in the Superior Court of Orange County 7 January, 1930, and on the following day a temporary receiver was appointed and the defendant required to appear in Durham, before Hon. ~W. C. Harris, at Chambers, on 17 January, 1930, and show cause why the temporary receivership should not be continued.\nThereafter, at the hearing in Durham, the receivership was made permanent, and the cause ordered removed from Orange County to Durham County \u201cfor the convenience of a large number of the creditors and attorneys for creditors,\u201d and to he consolidated with another cause pending in the Superior Court of the latter county. The plaintiff is a corporation with its principal place of business in Mecklenburg County, while the defendant is a resident of Orange County.\nThe defendant appeals from the order of removal, assigning same as error.\nNo counsel appearing for plaintiff.\nH. A. Whitfield and Gattis & Gattis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0548-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}