{
  "id": 8624435,
  "name": "AMAZON COTTON MILLS COMPANY v. THE DUPLAN CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1957-04-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 N.C. 88"
    }
  ],
  "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": "96 S.E. 2d 267",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613671
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 S.E. 2d 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0317-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1574,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.516651684874012e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44692084364764123
    },
    "sha256": "bb6d4faadb7fabc9612fbe3bb686b94da0e2e8a9c95b98bfd975b99839653d3e",
    "simhash": "1:9b4a957ba2dda793",
    "word_count": 273
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:34.544387+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AMAZON COTTON MILLS COMPANY v. THE DUPLAN CORPORATION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn the petition to rehear the plaintiff contended this Court committed error in ordering the action dismissed. The reason assigned is that the motion to dismiss was not passed on by the Superior Court and not the subject of an exceptive assignment here.\nThis Court\u2019s decision was based on the -view that the plaintiff stated a defective cause of action which the Court had the power to dismiss ex mero motu. \u201cIf the cause of action, as stated by the plaintiff, is inherently bad, why permit him to proceed further in the case, for if he proves everything that he alleges he must eventually fail in the action.\u201d Ice Cream Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E. 2d 910. Upon the authority of the case cited, the petition is\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James L. Rankin, E. T. Bost, Jr., W. H. Beckerdite,",
      "Walser & Walser,",
      "By: Don A. Walser, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter,",
      "By: R. M. Stockton, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AMAZON COTTON MILLS COMPANY v. THE DUPLAN CORPORATION.\n(Filed 10 April, 1957.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 7, 53\u2014\nWhere the complaint states a defective cause of action, the Supreme Court has the power to dismiss ex mero motu. Therefore, petition to rehear on the ground that motion to dismiss was not passed on by the .Superior Court and was not the subject of an exceptive assignment of error on appeal, will be dismissed.\nPETITION by plaintiff to rehear the above-entitled cause reported in 245 N.C. 496, 96 S.E. 2d 267. This Court denied defendant\u2019s request for permission to file a demurrer ore terms on the rehearing.\nJames L. Rankin, E. T. Bost, Jr., W. H. Beckerdite,\nWalser & Walser,\nBy: Don A. Walser, for plaintiff, appellee.\nRatcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter,\nBy: R. M. Stockton, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 139
}