{
  "id": 8628967,
  "name": "GEORGE L. SPELL v. L. C. ARTHUR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spell v. Arthur",
  "decision_date": "1933-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "405",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 N.C. 405"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2765,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "sha256": "867c49a364d99ceeb0ff0a6b9390c23b7174722e2e68d15d02fcbe147948ee83",
    "simhash": "1:0ac91fe3a2c49620",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:31.066060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stacy, C. J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE L. SPELL v. L. C. ARTHUR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe defendant moved to set aside the judgment on the ground of excusable neglect, C. S., 600. From a liberal interpretation of the findings of facts by the court below we think all necessary facts were found upon which in law to base the order of the court below that the verdict and judgment be set aside.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.\nStacy, C. J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "8. J. Everett for plaintiff.",
      "Harding & Lee for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE L. SPELL v. L. C. ARTHUR.\n(Filed 1 November, 1933.)\nJudgments Iv b\u2014\nTbe findings of fact by tbe court below beld sufficient upon a liberal interpretation to support tbe court\u2019s order setting aside the judgment for surprise and excusable neglect under O. S., 600.\nAppeal from Gracly, J., at March Term, 1933, of Pitt.\nAffirmed.\nAt May Civil Term, 1932, of Pitt Superior Court, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment against tbe defendant. Tbe issues submitted to tbe jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Did tbe defendant, through false and fraudulent representation, procure, collect and receive of tbe plaintiff payments on a bouse and lot as alleged, with tbe intent to cheat and defraud tbe plaintiff of tbe same? Answer: Yes.\n2. In what amount is tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff by reason and on account of tbe said payments? Answer: $550.00, with interest from 1 January, 1930.\u201d\nOn 16 September, 1932, after execution was issued against tbe property and returned unsatisfied and then against the person of defendant, in accordance with the judgment at May Term, 1932, notice was served on .plaintiff and bis attorney by defendant tbat be would move before \u201cbis Honor, Clayton Moore, judge of Superior Court, on 26 September, 1932, at 2 :30 o\u2019clock p. m., at Greenville, N. C., to set aside and vacate the judgment heretofore signed and entered in this action, upon the grounds set out in the attached motion and affidavit.\u201d\nThe matter came on for hearing before Grady, J., at March Term, 1933, Pitt Superior Court. It was agreed that the judge find the facts and render judgment. The facts were found by the judge and are set forth in the record, and the following order was made: \u201cOrdered and adjudged that the judgment and verdict in this case, which were entered at May Term, 1932, be and the same are hereby set aside, and defendant is permitted to file answer according to his prayer.\u201d\nThe plaintiff excepted and assigned error on the grounds that the court did not find (1) excusable neglect, (2) under the facts found, defendant was guilty of gross negligence and indifference to the process of the court, (3) there was no finding that defendant had a meritorious defense, (4) to the judgment as signed, that on the whole record the court could not set the judgment aside.\n8. J. Everett for plaintiff.\nHarding & Lee for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0405-01",
  "first_page_order": 469,
  "last_page_order": 470
}