{
  "id": 8606609,
  "name": "FRED M. PARRISH et al. v. CHARLES E. HARTMAN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parrish v. Hartman",
  "decision_date": "1937-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 248"
    }
  ],
  "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": "60 S. E., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268841
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 779",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3123,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.943004060014475e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4624373853456321
    },
    "sha256": "353e84a80f9159b275bbd361a3fc6950d72277515c0367c756aeab2bcd18f4cf",
    "simhash": "1:b43deda9ee750cbb",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FRED M. PARRISH et al. v. CHARLES E. HARTMAN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe order striking out defendants\u2019 purported statement of case on appeal, because not served in time, is supported by a long line of decisions, of which S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421, may be cited as the most recent. The failure to have a \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d however, does not ipso facto work a dismissal. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Non constat that error may not appear on the face o'f the record proper. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713.\nHere; error does appear on the face of the record proper. The judgment is in excess of the verdict in its award of interest on the recovery. This will be modified so as to conform with the verdict as it appears of record in the Superior Court of Yancey County.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parrish & Beal for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "Grant & Grant for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRED M. PARRISH et al. v. CHARLES E. HARTMAN et al.\n(Filed 13 October, 1937.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 10b\u2014\nThe allowance by the judge of the Superior Court of appellee\u2019s motion to strike out appellant\u2019s purported statement of case on appeal is without error upon the court\u2019s finding that the statement of case on appeal was not filed within the time allowed.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 31b\u2014\nFailure to have a statement of case on appeal does not ipso facto work a dismissal, but the Supreme Court may review the record proper for errors appearing upon its face.\n3. Judgments \u00a7 17b\u2014\nAVhere the verdict establishes defendant\u2019s indebtedness to plaintiff, but does not award interest, a judgment for the indebtedness with interest from the date the indebtedness was incurred is in excess of the verdict and will be modified to conform to the verdict.\nAppeal by defendants from Clement, J., at December Term, 1936, of Yadkikt.\nCivil action to recover of Charles E. Hartman the sum of $2,500 with interest, and to have the same declared a lien on certain lands in Yadkin County.\nThe jury returned the following verdict :\n\u201c1. Is C. E. Hartman the owner of the land described in the complaint in fee simple? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. What sum is C. E. Hartman indebted to the plaintiffs ? Answer: '$2,500.\u2019\n\u201c3. Is said sum a charge upon the lands, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: 'Yes.\u2019 \u201d\nThe verdict appears on the record three times, twice as above, and once with the second issue answered: \u201c$2,\u2019500, with interest from 31 January, 1933.\u201d\nIn tbe judgment it is decreed that \u201cthe said $2,500, with interest from '5 January, 1933, be and the same is hereby adjudged a charge and lien on the lands above referred to.\u201d\nThe defendants gave notice of appeal in open court, and were allowed 40 days to prepare and serve their statement of case on appeal. The trial term of court adjourned 17 December, 1936, and appellants\u2019 statement of case on appeal was served 4 February, 1937. The judge finds as a fact that appellants\u2019 \u201cCase\u201d was not served within the time allowed, and, upon motion of appellees, ordered that the same be stricken from the file of the papers in the case. From this ruling, defendants also appeal.\nParrish & Beal for plaintiffs, appellees.\nGrant & Grant for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 319
}