{
  "id": 8631600,
  "name": "DAVID V. PIKE v. S. B. SEYMOUR, JR., and WALTER L. MIDGETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pike v. Seymour",
  "decision_date": "1943-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "606",
  "last_page": "607",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 606"
    }
  ],
  "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": "22 S. E., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "28 S. E., 188",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2474,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20734780290279473
    },
    "sha256": "4c380b8d72a84cc9caafb2b61f2cd123fa990893db248c9020f3df21a675eed9",
    "simhash": "1:9e8f01a47e4d4553",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID V. PIKE v. S. B. SEYMOUR, JR., and WALTER L. MIDGETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Denny, J.\nWhere the trial court finds the case on appeal was not served within the time fixed or allowed, or service within such time waived, an order directing the appellants\u2019 case on appeal stricken from the files of said cause and the records of the court, is proper. Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188; Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Motion having been made in this cause to affirm the judgment below, and it appearing that no error exists on the face of the record proper, the judgment is affirmed. McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 22 S. E., 268; Roberts v. Bus Co., supra.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Denny, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMullan & McMullan for plaintiff.",
      "J. Henry Lelloy for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID V. PIKE v. S. B. SEYMOUR, JR., and WALTER L. MIDGETT.\n(Filed 24 February, 1943.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 10b\u2014\nWhere the trial court finds that the ease on appeal was not served within the time fixed or allowed, or service within such time waived, an order, directing the appellants\u2019 case on appeal stricken from the files of the cause and the records of the court, is proper.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 10b, 31b\u2014\nWhen appellants\u2019 case on appeal is stricken from the record as not filed in time, on motion in the cause to affirm the judgment below and it appearing that no error exists on the face of the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.\nAppeal by defendants from Blaclcstoch, Special Judge, at Chambers in Charlotte, N. 0., 14 December, 1942. From PebquimaNS.\nThis case was tried before Blackstock, Special Judge, at January Term, 1942, of Perquimans Superior Court. The case was consolidated-for trial with the case of Pierce v. Seymour, Jr., et al. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. This case was remanded to the trial judge for additional findings of fact. See the former opinion ante, 42.\nThe trial court found as a fact that the time for serving case on appeal expired 16 April, 1942; that on 20 April, 1942, plaintiff\u2019s counsel accepted service .of defendants\u2019 statement of case on appeal; but did not at any time accept or agree that defendants\u2019 statement of case on appeal should constitute the case on appeal in the Supreme Court, thereby waiving the time for service; nor did plaintiff\u2019s counsel at any time, in any way or manner, extend or waive the time of service. Thereupon, judgment was entered striking defendants\u2019 statement of case on appeal from the files of said cause and from the records of the court.\nDefendants appealed to the Supreme Court.\nMcMullan & McMullan for plaintiff.\nJ. Henry Lelloy for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0606-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}