{
  "id": 8608156,
  "name": "BERTHA M. HARRELL v. LORA B. WHITE, Administratrix, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrell v. White",
  "decision_date": "1935-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "409",
  "last_page": "410",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 409"
    }
  ],
  "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": "200 N. C., 824",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 160",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.758861091261689e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4559269671706729
    },
    "sha256": "27ab2c65ac46ef8ebebb94e5ff35409d076d3f09ca9582967136bbaec2d51994",
    "simhash": "1:9993de5a0aef26ce",
    "word_count": 337
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BERTHA M. HARRELL v. LORA B. WHITE, Administratrix, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThe situation presented by the record in this case is identical with that appearing in the case of Smith v. Texas Co., 200 N. C., 39, 156 S. E., 160. There, the transcript contained no grouping o\u00a3 exceptions or assignments of error as required by Rule 19 (3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 200 N. C., 824. It was said that upon motion of appellee the appeal would be dismissed or the judgment affirmed. The same may be repeated here.\nThe judgment will be affirmed on authority of the Smith case. See converse of proposition in Jenkins v. Castelloe, ante, 406.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B, Davenport for plaintiff.",
      "J. A. Pritchett for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BERTHA M. HARRELL v. LORA B. WHITE, Administratrix, et al.\n(Filed 18 September, 1935.)\nAppeal and Error E c \u2014 When Superior Court affirms the judgment of the county court, appellant must bring forward exceptions relied upon.\nWhere, on appeal from judgment of the general county court to the Superior Court on matters of law, the Superior Court overrules each of the exceptions relied upon by appellant, upon further appeal to the Supreme Court the appellant should bring forward each ruling of the Superior Court on the exceptions deemed erroneous, and properly group them and assign same as error, Rule 19 (3), and where appellant merely assigns as error \u201cthe judgment of the Superior Court,\u201d the appeal will be dismissed or the judgment affirmed.\nAppeal by defendants from Small, J., at November Term, 1934, of Beetle.\nCivil action in trover to recover personal property in possession of defendants, both parties claiming title thereto, instituted and tried in the general county court of Bertie County, where verdict and judgment were rendered for plaintiff. On appeal to the Superior Court, on matters of law, eighteen exceptions were assigned as error. All exceptions and assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of the general county court was affirmed. Whereupon the defendants appeal, assigning as error \u201cthe judgment of the Superior Court.\u201d\nJ. B, Davenport for plaintiff.\nJ. A. Pritchett for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0409-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 476
}