{
  "id": 8627920,
  "name": "UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE, INC., v. G. F. BULLARD et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Central Life Insurance v. Bullard",
  "decision_date": "1935-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "652",
  "last_page": "653",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 652"
    }
  ],
  "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": "175 S. E., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S. E., 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612356
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S. E., 358",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604176
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N. C., 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/80/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S. E., 413",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657463
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0670-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S. E., 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656010
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. E., 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0151-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3165,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.415177983653339e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6477387291691523
    },
    "sha256": "62fd5169c7d8b32ca51c34d1d92b9ea50446285ea0611b353e33a62249ae0d86",
    "simhash": "1:d2242f365ae7bd99",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE, INC., v. G. F. BULLARD et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nIt will be observed that there is an apparent conflict between what appears in the judgment and the case on appeal. Where such conflict exists, the recitals appearing in the record proper are controlling. Bartholomew v. Parrish, 190 N. C., 151, 129 S. E., 190; Moore v. Moore, 185 N. C., 332, 117 S. E., 12; S. v. Wheeler, 185 N. C., 670, 116 S. E., 413. \u201cWhere there is a repugnancy between the record and the case stated, the record will control.\u201d S. v. Keeter, 80 N. C., 472.\nBut for another reason the appeal must be dismissed. It is agreed \u201cthat the affidavits, summons, and pleadings were in due form,\u201d and therefore they were omitted from the record. This is fatal to the appeal. Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358; Waters v. Waters, 199 N. C., 667, 155 S. E., 564. It is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Bractice that \u201cthe pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.\u201d The pleadings are essential in order that we may be advised as to the nature of the action or proceeding. Waters v. Waters, supra. We can judicially know only what properly appears on the record. S. v. Lumber Co., ante, 47, 175 S. E., 713.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oliver Carter, Jr., and H. E. Clark for plaintiff.",
      "A. M. Moore for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE, INC., v. G. F. BULLARD et al.\n(Filed 28 January, 1935.)\n1. Appeal and Error E g\u2014\nWhere there is a conflict between recitals in the case on appeal and the judgment appealed from, the recitals in the judgment are controlling.\n2. Appeal and Error E a\u2014\nWhere the pleadings are omitted from the record by agreement of the parties the appeal will be dismissed, since the pleadings are necessary to inform the Court of the nature of the action or proceeding and the Court can judicially know only what appears on the record. Rule 19, sec. 1.\nAppeal by defendants from Crammer, J., at May Term, 1934, of RladeN.\nSummary proceeding in ejectment, tried before a justice of tbe peace on 5 April, 1934, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff.\nIn the- agreed statement of case on appeal it appears that \u201con 11 April, 1934, the justice of the peace duly sent up the defendant\u2019s case on appeal and the same was duly docketed by the clerk of the Superior Court.\u201d Notice of appeal, dated 11 April, 1934, showing service by sheriff on counsel and agent for plaintiff, \u201ctime 11:30 a.m.,\u201d also appears in the agreed statement of case on appeal.\nBut it is recited in the judgment, \u201cand it further appearing to the court from the records, and by admission of counsel for defendants, that no notice of appeal was given in open court, and that thereafter no notice of appeal was ever served upon the plaintiff as by statute in such cases made and provided, and that no- proper notice of appeal has ever been given the plaintiff\u201d;\nNow, therefore, on motion of counsel for plaintiff, appearing specifically for the purpose of moving to dismiss the appeal, it is \u201cordered and decreed that the appeal of the defendants be and the same is hereby dismissed.\u201d\nFrom this ruling the defendants appeal, assigning errors-.\nOliver Carter, Jr., and H. E. Clark for plaintiff.\nA. M. Moore for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0652-01",
  "first_page_order": 720,
  "last_page_order": 721
}