{
  "id": 8571113,
  "name": "MRS. MARY E. BLACK, Plaintiff v. SUE WRIGHT WILLIAMSON, Original Defendant and CHARLES L. BLACK Additional Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Black v. Williamson",
  "decision_date": "1962-10-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "763",
  "last_page": "765",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 N.C. 763"
    }
  ],
  "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": "125 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 S.E. 2d 669",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624256
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0528-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 379,
    "char_count": 6871,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2065689930185119
    },
    "sha256": "319b61fc007627dcfb351d792e41b47fdedd3c0ddf31f77204f7c9f791ff02f0",
    "simhash": "1:9cac9e8281b4e36a",
    "word_count": 1094
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:42.075591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. MARY E. BLACK, Plaintiff v. SUE WRIGHT WILLIAMSON, Original Defendant and CHARLES L. BLACK Additional Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe purported appeal is from an interlocutory order of a superior court judge, affirming an order of the clerk entered in accordance with G.S. \u00a7 1-568.11. It does not deprive appellant of a substantial right and no appeal lies therefrom. G.S. \u00a7 1-277; Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 67 S.E. 2d 669.\nIt is also noted that no exception or assignment or error appears in the record. The closest approximation is appellant\u2019s notice of appeal from Judge Walker\u2019s order. No error appears upon the face of the record.\nAppellant asserts the order for her adverse examination provides for an examination de novo, thus subjecting her to a second examination concerning matters covered by her testimony on January 19,1962. Ap-pellees, in their brief, assert \u201c (t) here is nothing in the order appealed from which purports to subject the defendant to re-examination 'with respect to those matters concerning which she has already testified at length,\u2019 \u201d and that they have no disposition to re-examine appellant concerning matters covered by her previous testimony. If, upon further adverse examination, appellant should refuse to answer any question propounded, whether she would be required to answer is determinable in accordance with G.S. \u00a7 1-568.18 and G.S. \u00a7 1-568.19. See Berry Brothers Corp. v. Adams-Millis Corp., 257 N.C. 263, 125 S.E. 2d 577.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warren C. Stack and James L. Cole for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Carpenter, Webb & Golding for defendant Williamson, appellant.",
      "Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman and Edgar Love, III, for additional defendant Black, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. MARY E. BLACK, Plaintiff v. SUE WRIGHT WILLIAMSON, Original Defendant and CHARLES L. BLACK Additional Defendant.\n(Filed 10 October 1962.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn order for the examination of an adverse party pursuant to G.S. 1-568.11 is an interlocutory order which does not affect any substantial right and from which no appeal lies. G.S. 1-277.\n2. Bill of Discovery \u00a7 3\u2014\nWhere the examination of an adverse party pursuant to informal consent of the parties has broken down upon disagreement as to the propriety of one of the questions asked on examination, a subsequent order for the examination of the party pursuant to G.S. 1-568.11 will not be held erroneous as subjecting the adverse party to an examination cLe novo when movant disclaims any intention to again subject the party to an examination with respect to the matter concerning which she has already testified.\nAppeal by original defendant from Walker, Special Judge, March 26,1962, \u201cB\u201d Term of MeCKlenbueg.\nOn February 18, 1960, at a street intersection in Charlotte, N. C., there was a collision between an automobile, in which plaintiff was a passenger, operated by Charles L. Black (plaintiff\u2019s husband) and an automobile operated by Sue Wright Williamson. On August 3, 1961, plaintiff instituted this action against Mrs. Williamson, alleging the collision and plaintiff\u2019s injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of Mrs. Williamson. Answering, Mrs. Williamson denied negligence and alleged the collision and plaintiff\u2019s injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of Mr. Black. Mr. Black was joined as a defendant in respect of the cross action for contribution alleged by Mrs. Williamson. Answering, Mr. Black denied the essential allegations of Mrs. Williamson\u2019s cross complaint for contribution.\nAfter the pleadings were filed, plaintiff\u2019s counsel proceeded to examine Mrs. Williamson adversely before Mrs. Rose M. Senn, a Notary Public, on January 19, 1962, in accordance with informal consent arrangements for such examination. Plaintiff had not obtained or applied for an order of the \u201cjudge or clerk\u201d appointing a commissioner to hold such examination in accordance with G.S. \u00a7 1-568.11. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel examined Mrs. Williamson as to what occurred on the occasion of the collision. The examination proceeded without incident until certain questions asked by plaintiff\u2019s counsel were challenged by Mrs. Williamson\u2019s counsel as relating to law rather than fact, e.g., this question: \u201cAnd do you say that Mr. Black failed to yield the right of way to you?\u201d When Mrs. Williamson, on advice of counsel, refused to answer the questions challenged as improper by her counsel, plaintiff\u2019s counsel stated that he withdrew his \u201cstipulation\u201d and the informal adverse examination ended.\nOn January 25, 1962, on plaintiff\u2019s application, Rachel B. Ingle, Assistant Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, signed an order for the adverse examination of Mrs. Williamson by plaintiff, appointed Mrs. Senn as Commissioner with full statutory powers, and designated the time (February 6, 1962) and place for such adverse examination. On January 30, 1962, Mrs. Williamson, through her counsel, moved to vacate said order of January 25, 1962, asserting, inter alia, her health would be placed in jeopardy by further examination, and praying, inter alia, \u201cif the court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to further examination, the same be ordered upon written interrogatories.\u201d Thereupon, the said Assistant Clerk, by order of February 1, 1962, set aside so much of her order of January 25, 1962, as required Mrs. Williamson to appear for adverse examination on February 6, 1962, and set February 8, 1962, as the time for a hearing on Mrs. Williamson\u2019s said motion.\nAfter hearing, J. Edward Stukes, Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, in his discretion, by order dated February 28, 1962, denied Mrs. Williamson\u2019s said motion, \u201creinstated in full force and effect\u201d the said order of January 25, 1962, and set April 20, 1962, as the date for the adverse examination of Mrs. Williamson. Mrs. Williamson excepted to said order of February 28, 1962, and appealed therefrom to a judge of the superior court.\nAfter hearing in the superior court, Judge Walker, in his discretion, by order dated March 29, 1962, affirmed the clerk\u2019s said order of February 28, 1962, and Mrs. Williamson gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.\nOn April 26, 1962, the said clerk, allowing Mrs. Williamson\u2019s motion therefor, changed the date for the adverse examination of Mrs. Williamson from April 20, 1962, to May 21, 1962, \u201cin order that she may have opportunity to docket her appeal and seek further stay in the Supreme Court of North Carolina until a final determination of the Appeal.\u201d A petition filed by Mrs. Williamson in this Court for a stay of the clerk\u2019s order providing for her adverse examination was denied May 18,1962.\nIt appears from exhibits attached to the motion to dismiss appeal filed in this Court by appellees (but not from the record filed by appellant herein) that the clerk, subsequent to his order of April 26, 1962, ordered that the adverse examination of Mrs. Williamson be deferred until disposition by this Court of appellant\u2019s purported appeal.\nWarren C. Stack and James L. Cole for plaintiff appellee.\nCarpenter, Webb & Golding for defendant Williamson, appellant.\nKennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman and Edgar Love, III, for additional defendant Black, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0763-01",
  "first_page_order": 803,
  "last_page_order": 805
}