{
  "id": 8559023,
  "name": "ANSON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COLE HENRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Anson Bank & Trust Co. v. Henry",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "253",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 N.C. 253"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626189
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0042-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2735,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.052586624913983e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5543429365959174
    },
    "sha256": "40f1f606ff26df52b7116a750f767d1804424ccdf5da6eb337b50a0eec65303a",
    "simhash": "1:175508f67cbca0c5",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:43.953535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Moore, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANSON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COLE HENRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s case on appeal contains no assignments of error as required by Rule 19(3), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. Therefore, unless error appears on the face of the record proper, or the issues are insufficient to support the judgment entered, the judgment will be sustained. Bank v. Bryant, 257 N.C. 42, 125 S.E. 2d 291. The issues establish defendant\u2019s indebtedness to plaintiff and are, therefore, clearly sufficient to support the judgment.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence in the case on appeal is set out entirely in questions and answers instead of in narrative form as required by Rule 19(4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. When this rule is ignored, the Court considers only errors presented by the record proper. Amusement Co. v. Tarkington, 251 N.C. 461, 111 S.E. 2d 538. In this case no such errors appear.\nThe appeal is\nDismissed.\nMoore, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Taylor, McLendon & Jones for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Theron L. Caudle for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANSON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COLE HENRY.\n(Filed 4 May, 1966.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nIn the absence of any assignment of error the judgment will he sustained unless error appears on the face of the record proper or unless the issues are insufficient to support the judgment entered. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(3),'\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 34\u2014\nWhere the evidence is set out in the record entirely in question and answer form, the appeal will be dismissed in the absence of error appearing on the face of the record proper. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(4).\nMoore, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Gwyn, J., November 1965 Civil Session of \u00c1NSON.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover upon two promissory notes (Exhibits 1 and 2), which, it alleges, defendant executed and delivered to it for value received. Defendant\u2019s answer is only a general denial of the allegations of the complaint. Upon the trial defendant admitted that, on June 7, 1955, for value received, he had executed and delivered to plaintiff a note (Exhibit 2), in the sum of $3,050.00, due and payable on September 7, 1955, and that it had not been paid. He also conceded that plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit 1, a note in the amount of $1,195.00, dated May 24, 1954, and due July 9, 1954, bore his signature. Interest on this note had been paid to August 9, 1955, and the principal had been reduced to $1,150.00.\nIn accordance with the court\u2019s peremptory instructions, the jury found that defendant was indebted to plaintiff on its Exhibit 1 in the amount of $1,150.00, with interest at 6% from August 9, 1955, and, on Exhibit 2, in the amount of $3,050.00, with interest from September 7, 1955. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appeals.\nTaylor, McLendon & Jones for plaintiff appellee.\nTheron L. Caudle for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0253-01",
  "first_page_order": 289,
  "last_page_order": 291
}