{
  "id": 8598152,
  "name": "P. H. BELL v. VICTOR H. NIVENS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bell v. Nivens",
  "decision_date": "1945-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "37",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. 35"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "19 S. E., 632",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649567
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 S. E., 999",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652043
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 S. E., 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N. C., 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649904
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S. E., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "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": "43 S. E., 926",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659525
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 7",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272399
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S. E., 616",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 775",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0775-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 S. E., 650",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0463-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5724,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.567478326774074e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9473731866220771
    },
    "sha256": "b544c27a86086637847ffa5e35cd165423a581550e6809e8174e6950575509a1",
    "simhash": "1:fce7e09c579341db",
    "word_count": 1052
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:44.450219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "P. H. BELL v. VICTOR H. NIVENS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nWe have bere a question of appellate procedure.\nA writ of certiorari from this Court is not available to extend the time for preparation and service of statement of case on appeal. Smith v. Smith, 199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737. This is a matter which belongs to the parties and the court below, S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421, subject to the limitation that the extension may not carry the appeal beyond the time it is due here. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126. It is axiomatic among those engaged in appellate practice that a \u201cstatement of case on appeal not served in time\u201d may be disregarded or treated as a nullity. Guano Co. v. Hicks, 120 N. C., 29, 26 S. E., 650. Of course, where a party is disadvantaged by some error or act of the court or its officers, and not by any fault or neglect of his own or his agent, a different situation is presented. Bank v. Miller, 190 N. C., 775, 130 S. E., 616; Winborne v. Byrd, 92 N. C., 7; Johnson v. Andrews, 132 N. C., 376, 43 S. E., 926.\nNor is it permissible to retrieve by certiorari the right to bring up the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d which has been lost by laches. S. v. Moore, supra. Its true use is to preserve the right before it is lost in order to prevent its loss. Bank v. Miller, supra; Pruitt v. Wood, supra.\nThe failure to have the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d legally settled, however, does not ipso facto require a dismissal of the appeal. Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713. The appellants are still entitled to present the case on the record proper. Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188.\nThe failure to file brief works an abandonment of the exceptions and assignments of error, S. v. Dingle, 209 N. C., 293, 183 S. E., 376, except those appearing on the face of the record which are cognizable sua sponte, e.g., want of jurisdiction or some patent defect. Thornton v. Brady, 100 N. C., 38, 5 S. E., 910; Appomattox v. Buffaloe, 121 N. C., 37, 27 S. E., 999.\nHere the right to bring up the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d has been lost by failure of appellants to serve their statement within the time allowed, or to obtain a waiver of such requirement. The mailing of the statement was not sufficient service in the absence of an understanding to that effect. Forte v. Boone, 114 N. C., 176, 19 S. E., 632; Hicks v. Westbrook, supra; Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Roberts v. Bus Co., supra. Hence, the result:\nCertiorari, disallowed.\nMotion to dismiss, denied.\nMotion to affirm, granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carl L. Bailey for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "E. D. Flowers {in Supreme Court only) for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "P. H. BELL v. VICTOR H. NIVENS et al.\n(Filed 28 February, 1945.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 10a, 16, 18a\u2014\nA writ of certiorari from this Court is not available to extend the time for preparation and service of statement of case on appeal, which is a matter for the parties and the court below, subject to the limitation that extension may not carry the appeal beyond the time it is due here.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 10b\u2014\nA statement of case on appeal not served in time may be disregarded or treated as a nullity. Of course, where a party is disadvantaged by some error or act of the court or its officers, and not by any fault or neglect of his own or his agent, a different situation is presented.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 18a\u2014\nIt is not permissible to retrieve by certiorari tlie right to bring up \u201cthe case on appeal\u201d which has been lost by laches. Its true use is to preserve the right before it is lost in order to prevent its loss.\n4. Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 lOe, 31b\u2014\nThe failure to have the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d legally settled does not -ipso facto require a dismissal of the appeal. The appellants are still entitled to present the case on the record proper.\n5. Appeal and Error \u00a7 29\u2014\nFailure to file brief works an abandonment of the exceptions and assignments of error, except those appearing bn the face of the record which are cognizable sua sponte.\n6. Appeal and Error \u00a7 10a\u2014\nThe mailing by appellant of his statement of case on appeal is not sufficient service in the absence of an understanding to that effect.\nAppeal by defendants from Carr, J., at October Term, 1944, of WASHINGTON.\nApplication by appellants for certiorari to bring up \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d Motion by appellee (1) to dismiss the appeal, and (2) to affirm the judgment.\nThe case was tried at the October Term, 1944, of Washington Superior Court, and resulted in judgment for plaintiff being signed at Nashville, N. C., on 5 December, 1944. Copy of the judgment was mailed to defendant, Thomas J. Nivens, in New York City.\nThe defendants were allowed 28 days in which to serve case on appeal. This was later extended for seven days. The extension was subsequently revoked as the judge concluded that he had no authority to grant the extension.\nOn 1 January, 1945, the defendant, Thomas J. Nivens, mailed from New York City by registered letters copies of statement of case on appeal to the presiding judge, assistant clerk of the Superior Court of Washington County, and counsel for plaintiff at their respective addresses in North Carolina. Signed receipts, dated 9 January, 1945, were received from each of the addressees. Counsel for plaintiff did not accept service of statement of case; nor was service waived.\nUp to this time the defendants were not represented by counsel. They' undertook to try their own case and to prosecute the appeal in propria personae. The appeal was due here 30 January, 1945.\nOn 9 February, 1945, counsel for defendants filed in this Court application for certiorari to bring up case on appeal.\nPlaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the judgment.\nCarl L. Bailey for plaintiff, appellee.\nE. D. Flowers {in Supreme Court only) for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 85
}