{
  "id": 8625167,
  "name": "W. M. SANDERS et al., v. MARY P. SANDERS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sanders v. Sanders",
  "decision_date": "1931-09-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 350"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S. E., 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N. C., 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656044
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S. E., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273535
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 824",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.429885753161678e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6510763754952509
    },
    "sha256": "e558ff2e75457a243bed4c23d510ec8d4932bc1640ba6868fd7d70d8cd39d371",
    "simhash": "1:76c9388ffbd81517",
    "word_count": 503
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. M. SANDERS et al., v. MARY P. SANDERS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe following appears in the agreed statement of case on appeal: \u201cThe defendants\u2019 only exception is to the order of the court striking- out the further defense of the defendants and directing a verdict.\u201d\nAt the close of the case it is stated: \u201cThe only exception was to the judgment as signed.\u201d This, of course, is without merit, as the verdict supports the j'udgment.\nNo assignments of error accompanied the case as certified by the clerk of the Superior Court, but certain purported assignments of error baye been added since tbe case was filed here, one of which is to an alleged \u201cerror appearing on tbe face of tbe statement of case on appeal.\u201d Only exceptive assignments of error are considered on appeal. Rule 19, Rules of Practice, 200 N. C., 824; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, 137 S. E., 175.\nFurthermore, tbe transcript is imperfect, in that, no summons appears in tbe record and there is nothing to show that tbe term of court was regularly held or that tbe cause was properly constituted in court. Jones v. Hoggard, 107 N. C., 349, 12 S. E., 286. In this state of tbe record, tbe appeal must be dismissed for failure to comply with tbe rules. Hobbs v. Cashwell, 158 N. C., 597, 74 S. E., 23; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. A. Martin for plaintiffs.",
      "E. J. Wellons for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. M. SANDERS et al., v. MARY P. SANDERS et al.\n(Filed 23 September, 1931.)\n1. Appeal and Error P lb \u2014 Exception to judgment as signed is without merit where verdict supports judgment.\nAn exception only to the judgment signed is without merit on appeal when the verdict supports the judgment.\nS. Appeal and Error P c \u2014 Assignments of error must he supported by exceptions duly entered.\nUnder the requirements of Rule 19 of Practice in the Supreme Court only exceptive assignments of error properly appearing of record are considered, and where no assignments of error appear in the statement of the case on appeal, but only purported assignments are added, after the case has been hied in the Supreme Court, alleging errors appearing on the face of the statement of case on appeal, the case will be dismissed for noncompliance with the rule.\n3. Appeal and Error E c \u2014 Where record does not comply with Rules of Court the appeal will be dismissed.\nWhere no summons appears in the record in the case on appeal and there is nothing to show that the term of court was regularly held or that the cause was properly constituted in court the case will be dismissed under Rule 19.\nAppeal by defendants from Sinclair, Jat February Term, 1931, of Joi-INSTON.\nCivil action to recover on a' promissory note, tried upon tbe following issue:\n\u201cIn what amount, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiffs ? \u2022 Answer: $690.98 with interest.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict for plaintiffs, from which the defendants appeal.\nG. A. Martin for plaintiffs.\nE. J. Wellons for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}