{
  "id": 8602296,
  "name": "O. A. EDWARDS et al. v. J. B. PERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1935-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "254",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 252"
    }
  ],
  "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": "206 N. C., 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631083
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S. E., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 S. E., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268841
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 779",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S. E., 188",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S. E., 167",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651131
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 S. E., 650",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 795",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0795-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 S. E., 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N. C., 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660248
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/159/0552-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5423,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2361141060398548e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6067430958330003
    },
    "sha256": "a9bf6df14ec38aa17c923c77e23ecfe84a4929a63f80d753b1002cad66bdd2f5",
    "simhash": "1:b475eaa7f621215b",
    "word_count": 976
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. A. EDWARDS et al. v. J. B. PERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nCounsel for both sides were evidently under tbe impression tbat 22 January, 1935, was tbe last day, prescribed by tbe court, for tbe service of appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal. Tbey dealt witb tbe matter on tbat day upon tbis assumption. Tbe discovery, subsequently made perhaps, tbat tbe judge left tbe bench on Friday, instead of Saturday, of tbe second week of tbe term, disclosed 21 January as tbe last day for tbe service of appellant\u2019s case. Hardee v. Timberlake, 159 N. C., 552, 75 S. E., 799; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890; Guano Co. v. Hicks, 120 N. C., 29, 26 S. E., 650; Delafield v. Const. Co., 115 N. C., 21, 20 S. E., 167. Hence, tbe order striking out tbe purported statement of case on appeal is supported by tbe decision in Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188.\nTbe circumstances may have justified tbe appellant in applying for a writ of certiorari to bring up bis case, but tbis was not done. Smith v. Smith, 199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737; Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398.\nThere being no case on appeal, legally settled, does not, however, entitle tbe appellee to have tbe appeal dismissed. Roberts v. Bus Co., supra. Non constat tbat error may not appear on tbe face of tbe record proper. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. For tbis reason, tbe appellant is permitted to pursue tbe appeal, even after bis right to a \u201ccase on appeal\u201d has been lost. Roberts v. Bus Co., supra.\nIn such case, however, unless error appear on tbe face of tbe record proper, it is tbe usual practice to affirm tbe judgment on motion of appellee. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268.\nTbe same parties were before us on another point in Edwards v. Perry, 206 N. C., 474.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. D. Flowers and J. G. Mills for plaintiffs.",
      "Gulley & Gulley for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. A. EDWARDS et al. v. J. B. PERRY.\n(Filed 22 May, 1935.)\n1. Appeal and Error O a \u2014 Computation of time for filing case on appeal when the court leaves the bench before the end of the term.\nWhen the trial court leaves the bench Friday preceding the last day of the term, stating he would not adjourn court, but would let the term expire by limitation, and no further business is transacted by the court at the term, the time for filing cases on appeals taken at the term will be computed from the Friday the court left the bench and not the Saturday following.\n2. Same \u2014 Motion to strike out purported statement of case for failure to file same within time fixed held properly allowed.\nWhere appellant is one day late in filing his statement of case on appeal, although the case would have been filed within the time allowed except for the fact that the court left the bench one day before the expiration of the term, appellee\u2019s motion in the trial court to strike out the purported statement of case on appeal, because not filed within the time fixed, is properly allowed, though the circumstances may have justified an application for writ of certiorari.\n3. Appeal and Error H a \u2014 Failure to file statement of case on appeal within time fixed does not entitle appellee to dismissal of appeal.\nWhere appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal is properly stricken out for appellant\u2019s failure to file same within the time fixed, appellee is not entitled to a dismissal of the appeal, and appellant may prosecute the appeal, although it is the usual practice in such circumstances to affirm the judgment, unless error appears upon the face of the record.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., 6 March, 1935. From WaKE.\nMotion by plaintiffs to affirm judgment.\nThe case was tried at the Second October Term, 1934, which resulted in verdict for plaintiffs. Motion by defendant to set aside verdict was by consent continued to be heard at the Second November Term, 1934. The motion was denied and judgment signed at this latter term, from which the defendant gave notice of appeal: \u201cNotice of appeal waived. . . . 45 days allowed to serve ease on appeal,\u201d etc.\nThe said Second November Term was a two-weeks term, beginning 26 November, and on Friday of the second week, 7 'December, the judge left the bench, stating that he would not adjourn court, but would let the term expire by limitation, and no further business was transacted by the court at this term.\nOn the morning of 22 January, 1935, counsel for appellant went to the office of counsel for appellees, both being residents of the town of Wake Forest, and requested an additional extension of time within which to serve statement of case on appeal. \u201cAfter some discussion, Mr. J. G. Mills stated to Dr. Gulley that Mr. F. D. Flowers was leading counsel for appellee, and that he could not extend the time fixed by the court unless Mr. Flowers consented to it. That he would go see Mr. Flowers and ascertain his wishes in the matter; that upon visiting the office of Mr. Flowers it was discovered that Mr. Flowers was in Eoches-ter, N. Y., which fact was reported by Mr. Mills to Dr. Gulley.\u201d\nCounsel for appellant thereupon prepared and served his statement of case before the end of that day, 22 January, 1935.\nPlaintiffs moved before the trial court to strike out appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal, because not served within the time fixed, which motion was allowed, the court finding that there had been no agreement of extension or waiver of the time prescribed, and defendant appeals from this ruling.\nF. D. Flowers and J. G. Mills for plaintiffs.\nGulley & Gulley for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 320
}