{
  "id": 8620514,
  "name": "ELEANOR KING MOONEYHAM v. A. O. MOONEYHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mooneyham v. Mooneyham",
  "decision_date": "1959-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "643",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 641"
    }
  ],
  "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": "181 S.E. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.C. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.E. 2d 560",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 819",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 698",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0698-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603643
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 505",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626001
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 849",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626321
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0224-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 4027,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.234682522085201e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6064577510117385
    },
    "sha256": "dc4fc792af87286d6fa923a71d1faa56af0321870465cbae8ae32935f97a38ce",
    "simhash": "1:da6dcdb0b7f68d5c",
    "word_count": 693
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELEANOR KING MOONEYHAM v. A. O. MOONEYHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MooRe, J.\nThe defendant moved in this Court to dismiss the appeal for failure of plaintiff appellant to send up defendant\u2019s verified answer as a part of the transcript of the record proper, in compliance with Rule 19, section (1), of our Rules of Practice. The verified answer which had been attached to defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the clerk\u2019s judgment was not sent as a part of the transcript of the record proper. Indeed, it was admitted by plaintiff\u2019s counsel here that the record with respect to a motion to strike -and alimony pendente lite were not made a part of the -transcript, because counsel deemed that -these were not necessary to an understanding of the exceptions relied on.\nThe proffered answer was attached to and made a part of the motion heard by Judge Patton and was a part of the record proper. We must assume that the Judge below considered it. Plaintiff excepted to the finding that the defendant had a meritorious defense. Such finding was essential to the validity of Judge Patton\u2019s judgment. Moore v. Deal, 239 N.C. 224, 79 S.E. 2d 507; Stephens v. Childers, 236 N.C. 348, 72 S.E. 849. Whether 'there was error in this finding, this Court cannot determine without the proffered answer before it. Therefore this answer, omitted from the transcript, is an essential part of the record proper in this case. Under Rule 19, section (1), only such records may be omitted as are \u201cnot involved and not necessary to an understanding of the exceptions relied on.\u201d\nNo case on appeal was served on defendant. The appeal came up on the record proper. The responsibility for sending the necessary parts of the record proper is upon the appellant.\n\u201cFailure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal.\u201d Allen v. Allen, 235 N.C. 554, 70 S.E. 2d 505. See also Thrush v. Thrush, 245 N.C. 63, 94 S.E. 2d 897; Pace v. Pace, 244 N.C. 698, 94 S.E. 2d 819; Griffin v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 306, 87 S.E. 2d 560; Goodman v. Goodman, 208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328.\nThis case stands as if no appeal had 'been taken from Judge Patton\u2019s judgment. The defendant may file his answer within thirty days from the date this opinion is certified to the Superior Court.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MooRe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams \u25a0& Williams and James N. Golding for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Harry C. Martin for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELEANOR KING MOONEYHAM v. A. O. MOONEYHAM.\n(Filed 25 February, 1959.)\n1. Judgments \u00a7 27b\u2014\nThe finding of a meritorious defense is essential to the validity of an order setting aside a judgment for surprise under G.S. 1-220.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 33\u2014\nUpon appeal from an order setting aside a default judgment upon the court\u2019s finding of surprise and a meritorious defense, the verified answer of defendant, attached to the motion to set aside, is a necessary part of the record proper, since in its absence it cannot be determined whether the finding of a meritorious defense was supported by evidence. Kule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(1).\n8. Appeal and Error \u00a7 34\u2014\nResponsibility for sending up the necessary parts of the record proper is upon the appellant, and his failure to send up necessary parts of \u25a0the record proper necessitates dismissal of the appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Patton, J., August Term, 1958, of Buncombe.\nThis is ian action for alimony without divorce under G.S. 50-16. Upon defendant\u2019s failure to file 'answer in time, the Clerk of the Superior Court, on motion of plaintiff without notice to defendant, entered judgment by default and inquiry. G.S. 1-212. In apt time defendant moved, in writing, to set aside the clerk\u2019s judgment under G.S. 1-220. The motion recited that verified answer of defendant was attached thereto and made a part thereof. The motion came on for hearing before Judge Patton. The court found as a fact that defendant had a meritorious defense and that the judgment had been entered \u201cto the surprise of the defendant\u201d; 'and the court Set aside the clerk\u2019s judgment. To Judge Patton\u2019s judgment plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nWilliams \u25a0& Williams and James N. Golding for plaintiff, appellant.\nHarry C. Martin for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 683,
  "last_page_order": 685
}