{
  "id": 8559807,
  "name": "ROBERT CALVIN WILLIAMS v. ASHEVILLE CONTRACTING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Asheville Contracting Co.",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "232",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 232"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 S.E. 2d 554",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571238
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0769-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626586
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "425"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657149
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "533"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "65"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 4461,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.333239313479978e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38906245113132076
    },
    "sha256": "8b7968cadf89774649d30c32597c23ea780de56d908ffb01a52ef261be0bcca7",
    "simhash": "1:0515a8009cecfdd7",
    "word_count": 747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT CALVIN WILLIAMS v. ASHEVILLE CONTRACTING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nCompliance with the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783 et seq.,, is mandatory. Rule 19(1) requires that the pleadings shall be a part of the transcript in all cases. Rule 20(1) provides that memoranda of pleadings will not be received or recognized in the Supreme Court as pleadings, even by consent of counsel. \u201cThe absence of the complaint from the record makes it necessary to dismiss the appeal.\u201d Thrush v. Thrush, 245 N.C. 63, 65, 94 S.E. 2d 897, and cases cited.\nWhile the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with our mies, we deem it appropriate to say: In our view, the facts alleged in paragraph 7 of the complaint in this (second) action are substantially the same as those alleged in paragraph 7 of the complaint in the first action. The court below presumably -based decision on \u201cthe recognized principle that -a judgment for defendant on a general demurrer to the merits, where it stands unappealed from and unreversed, is an estoppel as to the cause of -action set up in the pleadingjs, as effective as if the issuable matters arising in the pleadings had -been established by a verdict.\u201d Swain v. Goodman, 183 N.C. 531, 533, 112 S.E. 36; Jones v. Mathis, 254 N.C. 421, 425, 119 S.E. 2d 200, and cases cited.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gilliland & Clayton for plaintiff appellant.",
      "William L. Thorp, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT CALVIN WILLIAMS v. ASHEVILLE CONTRACTING COMPANY.\n(Filed 10 April 1963.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 33\u2014\nThe pleadings form a necessary part of the record proper, and when the pleadings are not present in the record the appeal must be dismissed, Rule of Practice in the .Supreme Court No. 19(1) ; nor will memoranda of the pleadings suffice, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 20(1).\n3. Judgments \u00a7 35\u2014\nUnless reversed on appeal, a judgment dismissing an action upon a demurrer for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action is a bar to a subsequent action on substantially identical allegations.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, December Civil Term 1962 of Nasi-i.\nThis is plaintiff\u2019s second \u00a1action against defendant to recover damages fox injuries sustained in a collision between motor vehicles belonging to the parties occurring in Nash County on M-arch 7, 1960.\nThis Court held the judgment of voluntary nonsuit entered in plaintiff\u2019s first action by the assistant clerk on November 7, 1961, constituted an abandonment by plaintiff of his appeal from a judgment entered in superior court at September Civil Term 1961 in which the court sustained defendant\u2019s demurrer on the ground the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of -action and dismissed the .action. Williams v. Contracting Co., 257 N.C. 769, 127 S.E. 2d 554.\nIn this (second) action the following statements appear in the agreed case on .appeal: Plaintiff instituted the second \u00a1action November 7, 1961, immediately after taking the voluntary -nonsuit in the first action. The demurrer to complaint in the first action was upon the ground \u201cthe complaint showed upon its face that the alleged acts of negligence on the part -of the defendant were not the proximate cause of the collision complained of and of the injuries to the plaintiff.\u201d Except as to paragraph 7, the complaints in the two actions are identical.\nNeither -the -complaint in this (second) action nor the complaint in the first action is -in the record now before us. (Note: The complaint in the first action is not in the record filed in this Court incident to said -appeal in the first action.) Paragraph 7 of each -complaint is quoted in the agreed case on appeal.\nDefendant\u2019s original answer is not in the record. The record includes an amendment to answer in which defendant pleads the judgment entered at September Civil Term 1961, .in the first .action, \u00a1as res judicata and in -bar of -plaintiff\u2019s right to maintain this (second) action. Attached to said \u201cAmendment to Answer\u201d is the demurrer to the complaint in the first action, the judgment thereon, the entries relative to the plaintiff\u2019s appeal therefrom, and the judgment of voluntary nonsuit entered on November 7, 1961.\nThe hearing below was on defendant\u2019s said plea in bar and on plaintiff\u2019s (oral) demurrer thereto. Judgment overruling plaintiff\u2019s said demurrer, sustaining defendant\u2019s said plea in bar and dismissing the action was entered.\nPlaintiff excepted to the judgment \u201csustaining defendant\u2019s Plea in Bar\u201d and appealed.\nGilliland & Clayton for plaintiff appellant.\nWilliam L. Thorp, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0232-01",
  "first_page_order": 276,
  "last_page_order": 278
}