{
  "id": 2221410,
  "name": "J. H. GROGG, JR., v. WILLIAM H. GRAYBEAL et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grogg v. Graybeal",
  "decision_date": "1936-02-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 575"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 S. E., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 816",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S. E., 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628633
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 O. S., 1608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S. E., 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626217
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3535,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0251801688539238e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5464181502473696
    },
    "sha256": "389f475921a7ab7e6c9d82d8531951206ea9811897fe87789add60a2d7380b4a",
    "simhash": "1:7dd0dc1c43a7b29c",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. GROGG, JR., v. WILLIAM H. GRAYBEAL et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe general county court of Buncombe County was established in 1929, pursuant to ch. 159, Pub. Laws 1929, which brought said county within the operation of the general statutes on the subject. Jones v. Oil Co., 202 N. C., 328, 162 S. E., 741.\nIt is provided by 3 O. S., 1608 (cc), that appeals in civil actions may be taken from the general county court to the Superior Court of the county in term time for errors assigned in matters of law \u201cin the same manner as is now provided for appeals from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court,\u201d the time for docketing and perfecting appeals to be counted \u201cfrom the end of the term of the general county court at which such trial is had.\u201d Baker v. Clayton, 202 N. C., 741, 164 S. E., 233.\nAssuming, therefore, that the rules of the Supreme Court are applicable to appeals from the general county court to the Superior Court of the county \u2014 and the statute appears to be susceptible of no other interpretation \u2014 it would seem the motion to dismiss was properly allowed under Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 200 N. C., 816; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126; Pentuff v. Park, 195 N. C., 609, 143 S. E., 139.\nIt is true, the rules as thus adopted by statute, apparently are ill adapted to appeals from the general county court to the Superior Court of the county, but as they have been prescribed by the General Assembly, litigants who avail themselves of the machinery of the general county courts are under the necessity of conforming. Baker v. Clayton, supra.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weaver & Miller for plaintiff.",
      "George O. Perkins and, Sale, Pennell \u2022& Pennell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. GROGG, JR., v. WILLIAM H. GRAYBEAL et al.\n(Filed 26 February, 1936.)\nCourts A c \u2014 Appeal from county court must be taken to next term of Superior Court commencing after adjournment of county court.\nAn appeal from judgment of a general county court must be taken to the term of the Superior Court commencing next after the adjournment of the term of the county court at which the judgment was entered, and where the record is not docketed in the Superior Court within the time prescribed, the appeal is properly dismissed, it being provided by statute that appeals from the general county court shall be governed by the rules governing appeals from the Superior Courts to the Supreme Court, 3 C. S., 1608 (cc), and dismissal in such circumstances being mandatory under Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 5.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Oglesby, J., at November Term, 1935, of Buncombe.\nCivil action to recover broker\u2019s commissions on sale of real estate, tried in the general county court of Buncombe County, September Term, 1935, nonsuited as to defendant W. H. Graybeal, and appeal dismissed in Buncombe Superior Court, November Term, 1935.\nThe facts are these:\n1. Judgment was signed in the general county court, 6 September, 1935.\n2. The September Term, general county court, adjourned by limitation, 4 October, 1935.\n3. Plaintiff appellant docketed record proper in office clerk Superior Court, 28 October, 1935.\n4. No case on appeal has been stated or served on appellee, and no certification of the judgment roll appears in the cause.\n5. Appeal bond was filed 31 October, 1935.\n6. The October and November Terms, 1935, Buncombe Superior Court, began 6 October and 4 November, respectively.\nUpon the foregoing facts, the Superior Court being of opinion the appeal had not been prosecuted as required by law, dismissed the same upon motion of appellee.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nWeaver & Miller for plaintiff.\nGeorge O. Perkins and, Sale, Pennell \u2022& Pennell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 637,
  "last_page_order": 638
}