{
  "id": 11310363,
  "name": "LeROY HAYES v. BRIDGER CORPORATION and BANK OF BLADENBORO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hayes v. Bridger Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1941-12-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "819",
  "last_page": "820",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. 819"
    }
  ],
  "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": "213 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2368,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "a7c79b53bdb33c0aa564c7477f77a61d1680309c5e82c4dda35c21c590d06b16",
    "simhash": "1:a038b6d4e8e2a315",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LeROY HAYES v. BRIDGER CORPORATION and BANK OF BLADENBORO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nCareful perusal of the record fails to show error in the judgment from which appeal is taken. The rules of practice in such case are too well settled to make repetition here necessary.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. M. Moore for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Varser, McIntyre & Henry for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LeROY HAYES v. BRIDGER CORPORATION and BANK OF BLADENBORO.\n(Filed 10 December, 1941.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at April Term, 1941, of BladeN.\nCivil action to recover- for alleged rents and profits from, and waste committed upon certain lands mortgaged by plaintiff and his wife to defendant Bridger Corporation, and by it foreclosed.\nThe record on appeal discloses these pertinent facts: On 19 April, 1938, referee, who was appointed by order of reference entered at January Term, 1936, filed report, setting out specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, to which plaintiff filed exceptions.\nAt April Term, 1939, Hamilton, Special Judge, presiding, finding tbe facts to be as found by the referee, and concluding (a) that plaintiff is not entitled to jury trial upon exceptions filed, (b) that there was no fraud in any of the transactions of which plaintiff complains, (c) that plaintiff is entitled to recover nothing of defendants, and (d) that defendant corporation is entitled to recover nothing of the plaintiff, signed judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff gave notice of appeal to Supreme Court, but did not perfect his appeal, and same was docketed and dismissed under Rule 17 of Rules of Practice in Supreme Court. (213 N. C., 808.)\nPlaintiff filed motion to set aside said judgment entered at April Term, 1939, as \u201cirregular, null and void\u201d in that Hamilton, Special Judge, after that term of court had adjourned and while at Morehead City, North Carolina, out of the district,\" by letter to the clerk, undertook to withhold the entry of said judgment. This motion was heard at April Term, 1941, before Hamilton, Special Judge, again presiding, who \u201cupon consideration of the record, the evidence taken before the referee . . . and the exceptions thereto filed by the plaintiff, and the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the judgment,\u201d held \u201cthat the judgment . . . was and is correct and proper,\u201d and thereupon denied and dismissed motion of plaintiff.\nPlaintiff appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nA. M. Moore for plaintiff, appellant.\nVarser, McIntyre & Henry for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0819-02",
  "first_page_order": 863,
  "last_page_order": 864
}