{
  "id": 8613201,
  "name": "LEON M. FUQUAY, Exr., v. CECIL FUQUAY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fuquay v. Fuquay",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "692",
  "last_page": "694",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 692"
    }
  ],
  "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": "23 S.E. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654139
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0811-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 S.E. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. 696",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0696-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 4771,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.702469334226362e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4074561876001265
    },
    "sha256": "7db907b094fb83a4179e829eca3b7200dfb10ab5e8991df4f3f751043554c191",
    "simhash": "1:98fc1611758a0807",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEON M. FUQUAY, Exr., v. CECIL FUQUAY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nAs tbe infant defendant was represented in tbe Superior Court by a guardian ad litem, presumably tbe attempted appeal should be regarded as one by tbe guardian, albeit be now designates bimself simply as \u201cattorney for appellant.\u201d\nThere are no exceptions to tbe judgment, only a grouping of five assignments of error, each of which ends with tbe notation: \u201cThis being defendant\u2019s Exception No.\u201d \u2014 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Perhaps the better description would be to say tbe record contains five exceptive assignments of error in reverse, or five assignments of error in reverse of exceptive. There are no exceptive assignments of error on tbe record.\nIn appellant\u2019s brief, be says: \u201cIt will be observed tbat tbe appellant groups and sets forth five assignments of error. After a careful consideration of each and every of these assignments, and a careful examination of tbe eases bearing on each of said assignments, candor compels him to admit tbat there is no merit in any of them.\u201d Yet as tbe court below suggested an appeal \u201ctbe appellant respectfully submits tbe matter to tbe Court and prays tbat it review tbe rulings . . . and tbe judgment.\u201d\nThis brief calls to mind tbe argument of a celebrated mountain lawyer in a murder ease some years ago, which ran as follows: \u201cIf Your Honors please, I am somewhat embarrassed in this case \u2014 my client more so than I am; he is over here in the Penitentiary under sentence of death. However, the re-cord is here; I have examined it; candor compels me to say I don\u2019t see much wrong with it. Still, if you gentlemen can find any error or any ground upon which to grant him a new trial, I shall appreciate it and I am sure he will.\u201d Took his seat, and much to his surprise, got a new trial, because it was discovered here that the jury had failed to designate in its verdict whether the crime was murder in the first or second degree. G.S. 14-17; S. v. Truesdale, 125 N.C. 696, 34 S.E. 646; S. v. Gadberry, 117 N.C. 811, 23 S.E. 477. In that case, however, there were exceptions on the record giving this Court authority to review the questions of law or legal inferences thereby presented. Const'., Art. IV, Sec. 8. And these were debated on brief.\nMoreover, that was a criminal prosecution and a capital case in which the appeal itself was or could have been regarded as an exception to the judgment and to the sufficiency of the record to support it. Here, however, we have an appeal in a civil action where all assignments of error and \u201cexceptions,\u201d if they may be so designated, have been expressly abandoned or withdrawn by the appellant in his brief. There is nothing to retain the case on our docket. S. v. Hicks, ante, 520.\nThis Court is for the correction of errors and not for the approval of judgments pro forma. The Superior Court must take full responsibility for its orders, judgments and decrees. Affirmances here add nothing to their validity, force or effect. They are still orders, judgments and decrees of'the Superior Court in which no error has been made to appear or found on appeal.\nThe appellant\u2019s brief negatives any question of law or legal inference upon which the attempted appeal might be predicated, or retained for consideration.\nThe case was submitted under Rule 10 without oral argument.\nAttempted appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. F. McLeod for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "W. A. Johnson fox defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEON M. FUQUAY, Exr., v. CECIL FUQUAY et al.\n(Filed 22 November, 1950.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn appeal from a judgment affecting a ward\u2019s estate in an action in-which the ward is represented by a guardian ad, Mtern should be prosecuted in the name of the guardian.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 6c (1) \u2014\nWhere there are no exceptions noted in the record but only a grouping of assignments of error with a notation after each that it constituted appellant\u2019s exception of corresponding number, there are no exceptive assignments of error.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 37\u2014\nThe function of the Supreme Court is to correct errors of law or legal inference and not to approve judgments pro forma, and therefore where there are no exceptions in the record and appellant in his brief admits that there is no merit in any of his assignments of error, the brief fails to present any question of law or legal inference and the appeal will be dismissed.\nAttempted appeal by infant defendant, Tbomas Fuquay, from Morris, J., June Term, 1950, of HaeNett.\nApplication by executor for interpretation and construction of will of C. G. Fuquay, deceased, and for instructions in respect of administration of bis estate.\nTbe record states tbat from tbe judgment rendered, Tbomas Fuquay, infant defendant, appeals at tbe instance of tbe trial court \u201cto tbe end tbat tbe said case and rulings be passed upon by tbe Supreme Court.\u201d\nB. F. McLeod for plaintiff, appellee.\nW. A. Johnson fox defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0692-01",
  "first_page_order": 740,
  "last_page_order": 742
}