{
  "id": 8628195,
  "name": "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodman v. Goodman",
  "decision_date": "1931-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "794",
  "last_page": "795",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 794"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 S. E., 830",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273575
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S. E., 763",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653747
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0702-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2447,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.190825995739791e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7737860392632929
    },
    "sha256": "469fc3d9bae975451330af88bd919a0ba073e805d45fb309eeb79efc3ac92916",
    "simhash": "1:ec5369cf7f1fee71",
    "word_count": 423
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThis is the second appeal in this case which was tried twice at the same term of Buncombe Superior Court.\nThe verdict rendered in the first trial was set aside by the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, because he regarded it as contrary to the weight of the evidence. To this ruling, the defendant objected, excepted, and noted an appeal.\nWhen the case was called for trial again, later in the term, the defendant prayed that further proceedings be stayed until the appeal, previously taken, could be determined, and objected to entering upon another trial of the cause. For this position, he relies upon Bohannon v. Trust Co., 198 N. C., 702, 153 S. E., 263, Likas v. Lackey, 186 N. C., 398, 119 S. E., 763, Pruett v. Power Co., 167 N. C., 598, 83 S. E., 830; C. S., 655.\nSo long as the matter was in fieri, the keeping of the verdict resided in the breast of the judge, and he was at liberty, at any time during the term, in the exercise of a 'sound discretion, to set it aside and to award a new trial, from which ruling no appeal lies. Goodman v. Goodman, post, 808. Therefore, the court was'justified in disregarding the attempted appeal from the order vacating the verdict returned in the first trial. Likas v. Lackey, supra. The remaining exceptions are without substantial merit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb. F. Curtis and Filis C. J ones for plaintiff,",
      "Wells, Blackstocle & Taylor for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN.\n(Filed 16 December, 1931.)\nAppeal and Error* D a. \u2014 Court may disregard attempted appeal from discretionary order setting aside verdict and proceed with second trial.\nWhere the trial court sets aside a verdict in his discretion as being against the weight of the evidence and the defendant excepts and notes an appeal, and later during the same term the case is again called for trial, Selfi: the defendant\u2019s prayer that further proceedings be stayed until the appeal previously taken could be determined is properly refused, the trial court having the right to set aside a verdict in his discretion at any time during the term while the matter is in fieri, and is justified in disregarding the attempted appeal from his order setting the verdict aside.\nAppeal by defendant from Stacie, J., at July Term, 1931, of Buncombe.\nApplication for alimony without divorce.\nFrom an adverse verdict and order awarding an allowance for subsistence and counsel fees, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nZeb. F. Curtis and Filis C. J ones for plaintiff,\nWells, Blackstocle & Taylor for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0794-01",
  "first_page_order": 868,
  "last_page_order": 869
}