{
  "id": 8624952,
  "name": "A. R. KEITH v. D. S. SILVIA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Keith v. Silvia",
  "decision_date": "1952-10-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "295",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "236 N.C. 293"
    }
  ],
  "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": "64 S.E. 2d 178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606863
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E. 775",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N.C. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/175/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 S.E. 966",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660472
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S.E. 2d 855",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627059
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 162",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606740
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E. 2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602765
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 488",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12164471
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606863
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4573,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43884759304499993
    },
    "sha256": "fc7bf60970f1e1f19a896ae178e3d3206cc1a43a7216514c39b2b197c3cfb28a",
    "simhash": "1:00f3e5750023a67c",
    "word_count": 799
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:47.341722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. R. KEITH v. D. S. SILVIA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ValbNtiNE, J.\nConceding without deciding that the defendant\u2019s appeal is not premature and fragmentary, we proceed to a discussion of the other question presented by this appeal. Were plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to the referee\u2019s report properly filed ?\nWhen an appeal is certified to this Court, the Superior Court loses jurisdiction of all matters involved in the appeal until action is taken here and the opinion of this Court is certified back to the Superior Court. Hole v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N.C. 374, 42 S.E. 2d 407; Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577; In re Puett\u2019s Will, 229 N.C. 8, 47 S.E. 2d 488; Harris v. Fairley, 232 N.C. 555, 61 S.E. 2d 619; Bailey v. McPherson, 233 N.C. 231, 63 S.E. 2d 559; Green v. Ins. Co., 233 N.C. 321, 64 S.E. 2d 162.\nAt the time of the making of the order from which the first appeal arose, the report of the referee was not before the court for consideration and therefore no exception could have been filed at that time. When the opinion of this Court was certified on 2 April, 1951, the Superior Court of Henderson County for the first time since the former appeal acquired jurisdiction so that exceptions could be properly filed. In any event, the presiding judge had a right in the exercise of his discretion to permit the filing of thp exceptions nunc pro tunc. Cheshire v. First Presbyterian Church, 221 N.C. 205, 19 S.E. 2d 855.\nEnder G.S. 1-194, a judge of the Superior Court has a wide latitude of discretion over the report of a referee, with power to review, modify, confirm in whole or in part, or to set aside the report. Cummings v. Swepson, 124 N.C. 579, 82 S.E. 966; Dumas v. Morrison, 175 N.C. 431, 95 S.E. 775; Keith v. Silvia, 233 N.C. 328, 64 S.E. 2d 178.\nThere is no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the court below. We, therefore, conclude that the order from which the appeal was taken must be affirmed and the case is remanded for proper proceedings according to the course and practice of the court.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ValbNtiNE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. F. Shipman and Kellum \u2022& Humphrey for defendant, appellant.",
      "L. B. Prince and Isaac G. Wright for plaintiff, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. R. KEITH v. D. S. SILVIA.\n(Filed 8 October, 1952.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 14\u2014\nAn appeal deprives tbe Superior Court of jurisdiction of all matters involved in tbe appeal from the time the appeal is taken to the time the decision of the Supreme Court is certified to the Superior Court.\n3. Reference \u00a7 9\u2014\nWhere motion to remove the referee is made prior to the time his report is filed, and an appeal is taken from the granting of the motion, the Superior Court, upon the certification of the decision of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment, has discretionary power to allow the filing of exceptions to the report, even though the report was filed prior to the hearing of the motion for removal. G.S. 1-194.\nAppeal by defendant from Gwyn, J., May-June Term, 1952, HehdeR-SON.\nCivil action to recover rent under a lease contract.\nTbis case was bere at tbe Spring Term, 1951, upon an appeal from an order discharging tbe referee, and is reported in 233 N.C. 328, 64 S.E. 2d 178, where tbe facts are fully stated and tbe law applicable to tbat appeal fully discussed. Tbe order was reversed and tbe case remanded. One of the reasons assigned for the reversal was that the referee\u2019s report was not before the court for consideration at the time the order was made. The opinion of this Court was certified to the Superior Court of Henderson County on 2 April, 1951, and on the same date, the plaintiff filed exceptions to the referee\u2019s report.\nAt the April-May Term, 1952, of the Superior Court of Henderson County, an order was made and entered holding that the plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to the referee\u2019s report were filed within time and recited that if it should be held otherwise, then the court within the exercise of its discretion allowed plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to be filed nunc pro tunc.\nAt the June Term, 1952, upon plaintiff\u2019s exceptions treated as a motion to set aside the referee\u2019s report, the court made an order sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s exceptions and setting aside the referee\u2019s report and retaining the cause for further orders. In the same order, the court overruled the defendant\u2019s motion for a confirmation of the referee\u2019s report.\nTo the order of Judge Gwyn allowing plaintiff to file exceptions to the referee\u2019s report, the order overruling defendant\u2019s motion to confirm the report, and the order setting aside the referee\u2019s report and retaining the cause for further orders, the defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nJ. F. Shipman and Kellum \u2022& Humphrey for defendant, appellant.\nL. B. Prince and Isaac G. Wright for plaintiff, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 347
}