{
  "id": 8626707,
  "name": "THE CLAYTON BANKING COMPANY et al. v. THE FARMERS BANK et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank",
  "decision_date": "1937-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 328"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 S. E., 1008",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 N. C., 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271808
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/160/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S. E., 955",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253076
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 S. E., 104",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654601
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S. E., 287",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624447
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S. E., 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S. E., 498",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S. E., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612552
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S. E., 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S. E., 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628493
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S. E., 802",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0493-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2603,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.864634086217394e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5345398515511908
    },
    "sha256": "35104dfb258e56f3d91e1d95750b9f1ff3b556d4a0cb7af4543373b387d062ae",
    "simhash": "1:9c89bc3f9c615ea3",
    "word_count": 465
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE CLAYTON BANKING COMPANY et al. v. THE FARMERS BANK et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nEven if it be conceded that the original order of confirmation was irregularly entered, still no harm seems to have come to movant, as later decreed by the judgment at the September Term, which also apparently amounts to an order of confirmation. But, however this may be, the record is barren of any factual determination upon which a reversal of the judgment could be predicated. Hospital v. Rockingham County, ante, 205.\nIn a motion of this kind, where .the correctness of the court\u2019s ruling is dependent upon facts aliunde or dehors the record, a request should be made that the facts be found, otherwise it will be presumed that they were determined in support of the judgment. Dunn v. Wilson, 210 N. C., 493, 187 S. E., 802; Powell v. Bladen County, 206 N. C., 46, 173 S. E., 50; S. v. Dalton, ibid., 507, 174 S. E., 422; Comr. of Revenue v. Realty Co., 204 N. C., 123, 167 S. E., 563; S. v. Harris, ibid., 422, 168 S. E., 498; Rutledge v. Fitzgerald, 197 N. C., 163, 147 S. E., 816; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N. C., 504, 135 S. E., 287; Mfg. Co. v. Foy Seawell Lbr. Co., 177 N. C., 404, 99 S. E., 104; Gardiner v. May, 172 N. C., 192, 89 S. E., 955; Lumber Co. v. Buhmann, 160 N. C., 385, 75 S. E., 1008.\nOn the record as presented, no error is apparent.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parker \u25a0& Lee for L. T. Rose, appellant.",
      "Abell & Shepard for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE CLAYTON BANKING COMPANY et al. v. THE FARMERS BANK et al.\n(Filed 17 March, 1937.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6d\u2014\nWhere the correctness of the court\u2019s ruling upon a motion is dependent upon facts aliunde or dehors the record, appellant must request the court to find the facts, otherwise it will be presumed that the court found facts in support of the judgment, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nAppeal by defendant L. T. Rose from Granmer, J., at September Term, 1936, of JohNstow.\nMotion to vacate order of confirmation.\nAt the April Term, 1936, Johnston Superior Court, there was verdict and judgment for plaintiffs in the above entitled cause, and order appointing commissioner and directing sale of collateral to be applied on judgment. The commissioner made sale of collateral and recommended confirmation 19 June, 1936. Order of confirmation was entered at \u201cSmithfield, this 24th day of June, 1936. N. A. Sinclair, Judge,\u201d etc.\nMotion was made at the September Term, 1936, to vacate said order of confirmation on the ground of irregularity. The motion was denied, \u201cit appearing to tbe court that the sale was in all respects regular and in accordance with the judgment of the court entered at the April Term.\u201d\nMovant appeals, assigning errors.\nParker \u25a0& Lee for L. T. Rose, appellant.\nAbell & Shepard for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 395
}