{
  "id": 8621343,
  "name": "GEORGE E. NISSEN COMPANY v. W. M. NISSEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "George E. Nissen Co. v. Nissen",
  "decision_date": "1930-06-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "808",
  "last_page": "809",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 808"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 757",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658264
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0757-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656220
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652142
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0242-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2054,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20721150151997278
    },
    "sha256": "cf4f5924c1fb257c1dcbb0faa75b016c554fb2f45394ed076a572a27ac95c72c",
    "simhash": "1:08edb2dd0f41be26",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE E. NISSEN COMPANY v. W. M. NISSEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CueiaM.\nThe court below in its discretion allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint. The defendant excepted, assigned error and appealed to this Court. We think the appeal premature and fragmentary.\nC. S., 638: \u201cAn appeal may be taken from every judicial order or determination of a judge of a Superior Court, upon or involving a matter of law or legal inference, whether made in or out of term, which affects a substantial right claimed in any action or proceeding; or which in effect determines the action, and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken; or discontinues the action, or grants or refuses a new trial.\u201d\n\u201cThe rule generally stated is that appeals are intended to present for review the whole ease, and a party can preserve his rights by taking exceptions and bringing them forward on final hearing, unless the order affects a substantial right which would be put in jeopardy by a delay.\u201d McIntosh N. C. Prac. & Proc., p. 776. Smith v. Miller, 155 N. C., 242; Penn-Allen Cement Co. v. Phillips, 182 N. C., 437; Leroy v. Saliba, 182 N. C., 757; Contracting Co. v. Power Co., 195 N. C., 649; Hosiery Mill v. Hosiery Mills, ante, 596; Ellis v. Ellis, ante, 767.\nIn the present action the amendment to the complaint does not affect such a substantial right that defendant is allowed under the statute to appeal from. The defendant attempts to jump over the stile before he gets to it.\nFor the reasons given\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parrish & Beal for plaintiff.",
      "Ffird & Lvipferb, John M. Robinson, Fred S. Hutchins and Hunter M. Jones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE E. NISSEN COMPANY v. W. M. NISSEN.\n(Filed 6 June, 1930.)\nAppeal and Error A d \u2014 Appeal from order allowing amendments to pleadings which does not affect a substantial right will be dismissed.\nWhere an order of court allowing amendments to pleadings does not affect a substantial right, an appeal therefrom is fragmentary and premature, and the appeal will be dismissed. C. S., 638.\nAppeal by defendant from Finley, J., at November Term, 1929, of Eoesyth.\nAppeal dismissed.\nParrish & Beal for plaintiff.\nFfird & Lvipferb, John M. Robinson, Fred S. Hutchins and Hunter M. Jones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0808-02",
  "first_page_order": 878,
  "last_page_order": 879
}