{
  "id": 8630188,
  "name": "NATHAN COLE v. J. N. BRYANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cole v. Bryant",
  "decision_date": "1938-05-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "672",
  "last_page": "673",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 672"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 2031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3192481492164215
    },
    "sha256": "9b2c999b3759852fcd0b525ece832b0725d072cc60ae35660414017b290008d1",
    "simhash": "1:d71c5dea82d91869",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NATHAN COLE v. J. N. BRYANT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThree separate actions by tbe plaintiff to recover of tbe defendant attorneys\u2019 fees for services rendered in three separate cases were consolidated for tbe purpose of trial. Tbe principal assignments of error urged on appeal are, first, to tbe refusal of tbe court to allow a motion for a continuance of tbe cases, and, second, to tbe order of tbe court consolidating tbe actions for trial.\nTbe first assignment of error cannot be sustained, since tbe continuance of a case rests in tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court and is not reviewable, in tbe absence of an abuse of discretion. Mclntosb, N. C. Practice & Procedure, par. 502, pp. 529-30. We find no abuse of discretion in tbe refusal to allow a continuance in tbe instant cases.\nTbe second assignment of error cannot be sustained for tbe reason tbat tbe court finds as a fact in tbe judgment tbat tbe cases were consolidated by consent, tbe language being as follows : \u201cTbe above entitled causes, coming on for bearing before bis Honor, and a jury, by consent of tbe plaintiff and defendant, tbe three separate independent suits by tbe plaintiff against tbe defendant baying been consolidated and tried as one case.\u201d There is no exception to tbis finding.\nWe bave examined tbe other exceptive assignments of error discussed in tbe appellant\u2019s brief and find no prejudicial errors.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. G. Grady for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Wm. F. Jones for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NATHAN COLE v. J. N. BRYANT.\n(Filed 25 May, 1938.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 4: Appeal and Error \u00a7 37b\u2014\nA motion for continuance is addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, and tbe denial of tbe motion is not reviewable in tbe absence of abuse of discretion,\n2. Trial \u00a7 11: Appeal and Error \u00a7 24\u2014\nWhen there is no exception to the court\u2019s finding- tbat tbe parties consented to a consolidation of tbe actions for trial, an exception to tbe order of tbe court consolidating the actions will not be sustained.\nAppeal by defendant from Spears, J., at October Term, 1937, of New HaNover. No error.\nB. G. Grady for plaintiff, appellee.\nWm. F. Jones for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0672-01",
  "first_page_order": 736,
  "last_page_order": 737
}