{
  "id": 8600616,
  "name": "THEODORE S. MEEKINS v. COASTAL GAME PRESERVES, CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LOUVAL REALTY COMPANY, INC., HAROLD C. LEWIS, and ALBERT A. LEWIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meekins v. Coastal Game Preserves",
  "decision_date": "1937-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "96",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 96"
    }
  ],
  "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": "182 N. C., 725",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658057
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0725-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N. C., 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653079
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0627-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2271,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20712500999092998
    },
    "sha256": "bdf9b0c0ece15b5b1376e78a68db6d50aea446f8425f59f91c83a4d7a6bc0728",
    "simhash": "1:673af2820b2eb2a6",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THEODORE S. MEEKINS v. COASTAL GAME PRESERVES, CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LOUVAL REALTY COMPANY, INC., HAROLD C. LEWIS, and ALBERT A. LEWIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe order appealed from granted tbe plaintiff thirty days within which to amend tbe complaint and affidavits upon which tbe attachment was based. Tbe power of tbe court to permit amendments of pleadings and process is ample (Rushing v. Ashcraft, 211 N. C., 627). Hence, tbe appeal before tbe time within which amendments were permitted to be filed was premature. What amendments, if any, will be made and their effect upon defendants\u2019 motion cannot now be properly determined. Tbe cause is remanded to the Superior Court for\u2019further proceedings, the defendants\u2019 exception being preserved. Thomas v. Carteret County, 180 N. C., 109; Farr v. Lumber Co., 182 N. C., 725.\nRemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. B. Simpson and John H. Hall for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Worth & Horner for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THEODORE S. MEEKINS v. COASTAL GAME PRESERVES, CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LOUVAL REALTY COMPANY, INC., HAROLD C. LEWIS, and ALBERT A. LEWIS.\n(Filed 22 September, 1937.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 21\u2014\nUpon appeal from tbe clerk\u2019s order denying a motion to vacate plaintiff's attachment, tbe Superior Court, in denying defendants\u2019 motion, bas ample power to allow plaintiff to amend tbe complaint and affidavits.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 2\u2014\nAn appeal from an order denying defendants\u2019 motion to vacate an attachment is premature where tbe trial court allows plaintiff to amend bis complaint and affidavits, since what amendments, if any, will be made and their effect upon defendants\u2019 motion cannot be determined.\nAppeal from an order of Williams, J., at May Term, 1931, of Dare.\nRemanded.\nAction by plaintiff creditor to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances executed by and between tbe defendants, wbo are nonresidents. At tbe time of issuance of summons, attachment was issued and levied by tbe sheriff on tbe interests of tbe defendants in described lands. Service of summons and warrant of attachment was bad by publication. Defendants entered special appearance and moved to vacate tbe attachment. This was denied by tbe clerk and upon appeal the judge of the Superior Court made an order that tbe motion be denied and that tbe plaintiff be allowed thirty days within which to file amendment to complaint and affidavits.\nFrom this order defendants appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nM. B. Simpson and John H. Hall for plaintiff, appellee.\nWorth & Horner for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0096-01",
  "first_page_order": 166,
  "last_page_order": 166
}