{
  "id": 8614270,
  "name": "SOUTHERN BUTANE GAS CORPORATION v. FRANK BULLARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Butane Gas Corp. v. Bullard",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "730",
  "last_page": "731",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 730"
    }
  ],
  "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": "53 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628368
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0747-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621158
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614204
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 609",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0537-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20717462678326035
    },
    "sha256": "51dfb28e582115449e6781e2b1610e8a32f0a98436facf21cf80eae180fbaf10",
    "simhash": "1:5a315ecab28fb6e2",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "JOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN BUTANE GAS CORPORATION v. FRANK BULLARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nFor want of an answer judgment by default final was rendered by the Clerk in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the judgment on the ground of excusable neglect was denied by the Clerk, but on an appeal to the Superior Court it was found by the Judge \u201cthat the judgment was obtained on account of the defendant\u2019s excusable neglect, and that the judgment was irregular . . . and that defendant has a meritorious defense.\u201d Thereupon it was ordered that the judgment be vacated. G.S. 1-220.\nFVom the record it appears that \u201cto the above judgment the plaintiff excepts and appeals to the Supreme Court,\u201d and assigns as error \u201cthat the court erred in signing the judgment.\u201d As there is no exception to the finding that defendant\u2019s failure to answer in due time was attributable to his excusable neglect or that defendant has a meritorious defense, the questions debated by appellant are not presented. The exception to the judgment brings up only the question whether the facts found support the judgment. No error appears on the face of the record. Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E. 2d 869; Brown v. Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 65, 40 S.E. 2d 476; Roach v. Prichett, 228 N.C. 747, 47 S.E. 2d 20; Simmons v. Lee, 230 N.C. 216, 53 S.E. 2d 79.\nJudgment affirmed.\nJOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens, Burgwim, & Mintz for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Isaac C. Wright and Alton A. Lennon for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN BUTANE GAS CORPORATION v. FRANK BULLARD.\n(Filed 29 November, 1950.)\nJudgments \u00a7 27a: Appeal and Error \u00a7 6c (2) \u2014\nWhere the court sets aside a judgment upon its findings of excusable neglect and meritorious defense, a sole exception to the signing of the judgment does not present the findings for review, and the judgment, being supported by the findings, will be affirmed.\nJoi-inson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Frizzelle, J., May Term, 1950, of New HaNOvek.\nAffirmed.\nStevens, Burgwim, & Mintz for plaintiff, appellant.\nIsaac C. Wright and Alton A. Lennon for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0730-01",
  "first_page_order": 778,
  "last_page_order": 779
}