{
  "id": 8606085,
  "name": "CONNIE JARRETT v. WINSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jarrett v. Winston Mutual Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1935-06-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "343",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 343"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 S. E., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N. C., 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630378
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632760
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627240
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609830
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S. E., 399",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N. C., 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630870
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S. E., 160",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622242
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S. E., 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S. E., 692",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615260
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0575-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5231069456172928
    },
    "sha256": "f286af11b9b6fdad7fd69c68570e7bec6cd1115ca872056d7f3600b56daec8e1",
    "simhash": "1:46139a34727d9456",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CONNIE JARRETT v. WINSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe Forsyth County Court was established in 1915, as an inferior court for the trial of civil cases only, with the right of appeal by \u201ceither the plaintiff or the defendant\u201d to the Superior Court of Forsyth County \u201cfor errors assigned in matters of law in the same manner and under the same requirements as are now provided by law for appeals from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court.\u201d Chapter 520, Public-Local Laws 1915; Chappel v. Ebert, 198 N. C., 575, 152 S. E., 692. Subsequent legislation affecting the court is not presently pertinent. Chemical Co. v. Turner, 190 N. C., 471, 130 S. E., 154.\nThe appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court is not questioned; its authority in the exercise of such jurisdiction to grant new trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence is not mooted; nor is the sufficiency of the evidence to invoke a discretionary ruling challenged on the present record. Crane v. Carswell, 204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160. These are all conceded or taken for granted. S. v. Edwards, 205 N. C., 661, 172 S. E., 399; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 316, 166 S. E., 292; S. v. Casey, 201 N. C., 620, 161 S. E., 81.\nIt is tbe uniform bolding tbat no appeal lies to tbis Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on tbe ground of newly discovered evidence. Crane v. Carswell, supra; S. v. Ferrell, 206 N. C., 738, 175 S. E., 91.\nSpeaking to tbe subject as far back as Vest v. Cooper (1873), 68 N. C., 131, Beade, J., delivering tbe opinion of tbe Court, said: \u201cThere seems to be an impression tbat there may be an appeal from every motion for a new trial; and tbe fact is overlooked tbat it must Involve a matter of law or legal inference,\u2019 and not a mere matter of discretion. Tbis will illustrate: Plaintiff recovers of defendant $1,000. Defendant files affidavit tbat since tbe trial be has discovered tbat be can prove tbe debt has been paid. His Honor says, I believe your affidavit and I grant a new trial, or I do not believe it, and I refuse a new trial. Tbis is a matter of discretion, and no appeal lies.\u201d Tbis has been cited with approval in subsequent decisions: S. v. Riddle and Huffman, 205 N. C., 591, 172 S. E., 400; S. v. Lea, supra.\nIt follows, therefore, tbat tbe appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Slawter & Wall for plaintiff.",
      "Ingle & Rucker for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CONNIE JARRETT v. WINSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 June, 1935.)\nAppeal and Error J a \u2014 Order granting new trial for newly discovered evidence in exercise of discretionary power is not reviewable.\nA motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence, made in the Superior Court on appeal from judgment of the county court, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and an appeal from the court\u2019s order allowing the motion and remanding the cause to the county court for a new trial will be dismissed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at February Term, 1935, of Forsyth.\nCivil action to recover on policy of life insurance, instituted in tbe Forsyth. County Court, where verdict and judgment for $285.00 were rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Forsyth County, assigning errors.\nDefendant also lodged motion in the Superior Court for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence. This motion was allowed, and the cause was remanded to the Forsyth County Court for new trial. From this ruling the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nSlawter & Wall for plaintiff.\nIngle & Rucker for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0343-01",
  "first_page_order": 409,
  "last_page_order": 410
}