{ "id": 8620855, "name": "A. P. ROBERTS v. GREENSBORO-FAYETTEVILLE BUS COMPANY et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Co.", "decision_date": "1930-06-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "779", "last_page": "780", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 N.C. 779" } ], "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": "23 S. E., 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 S. E., 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N. C., 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268841 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/147/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S. E., 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652448 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0131-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 255, "char_count": 3653, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.941629943854984e-07, "percentile": 0.8481591011676742 }, "sha256": "4b0fb4e3ebc59667ec3370378dae474bdcd49e3730c4dd7a5bbed9b3339b06c4", "simhash": "1:b4d3bb0dfe692751", "word_count": 623 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. P. ROBERTS v. GREENSBORO-FAYETTEVILLE BUS COMPANY et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, O. J.,\nafter stating the case: The order striking the defendants\u2019 purported statement of case on appeal from the file of the papers in the cause is supported by the decision in Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188. This, however, did not entitle the plaintiff to a dismissal of the appeal. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. Non constat, an examination of the defendants\u2019 purported statement of case on appeal, filed here with application for certiorari, fails to convince us that, on the defendants\u2019 own showing, reversible error was committed on the trial of the cause. Hence, it further appearing that no error exists on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268. It would seem, therefore, that, irrespective of the procedural questions raised by the appeal, the same result would have followed, had the case been presented without them.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, O. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Frazier & Frazier and A. J. Moreau for plaintiff.", "Jno. W. Hester and F. Glenn Henderson for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. P. ROBERTS v. GREENSBORO-FAYETTEVILLE BUS COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 6 June, 1930.)\nAppeal and Error C a \u2014 Order that appellant\u2019s proposed statement of case, filed after expiration of time, he stricken from papers held not error.\nWhere the appellant has failed to serve his case on appeal in the time given therefor, the granting of the appellee\u2019s motion by the court below to strike the appellant\u2019s proposed statement of the case from the papers in the cause does not effect a dismissal, but where it appears from an examination of the record upon appellant\u2019s motion for eertiorarl that there is no error on the face of the record, the order of the court below will be affirmed.\nAppeal by defendants from McElroy, J., at March Term, 1930, of Guilfobb.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful injury caused by a collision between plaintiff\u2019s automobile and a bus, owned by tbe corporate defendant and operated at tbe time by John Rich, said collision occurring at tbe intersection of Whittington and South Elm streets in tbe city of Greensboro on tbe morning of 19 January, 1929.\nTbe case was tried at tbe January Term,. 1930,- Guilford Superior Court, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff, tbe judgment being signed o-n 18 January, tbe last day of tbe term, and from which tbe defendants gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court.\nBy consent, and with tbe court\u2019s approval, tbe defendants were allowed thirty days within which to prepare and serve statement of case on appeal, and tbe plaintiff was allowed fifteen days thereafter to file exceptions or counter-statement of case.\nTbe defendants served their statement of case on appeal on plaintiff\u2019s counsel 18 February, 1930, more than thirty days after tbe adjournment of tbe term of court at which tbe case was tried; no counter-statement of case was served or exceptions filed by plaintiff; and on 24 February plaintiff lodged a motion before Hon. Clayton Moore, Special Judge, to strike tbe defendants\u2019 purported statement of case on appeal from tbe file of the-papers in tbe cause. This motion was continued and beard by Hon. P. A. McElroy, before whom tbe case was .tried, who allowed the same 5 March, 1930, and ordered that the said purported satement of case on appeal served by the defendants after the time for service thereof had expired, be stricken from the files. In the meantime, on 4 March, the defendants filed their statement of case on appeal in the clerk\u2019s office.\nFrom the order, striking said purported statement of case from the files, the defendants duly excepted and appealed.\nFrazier & Frazier and A. J. Moreau for plaintiff.\nJno. W. Hester and F. Glenn Henderson for defendants." }, "file_name": "0779-01", "first_page_order": 849, "last_page_order": 850 }