{
  "id": 11274624,
  "name": "JOHN PARKER vs. PENIL GILREATH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parker v. Gilreath",
  "decision_date": "1845-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Ired. 221"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. 221"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2309,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.426,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.059989733099374e-07,
      "percentile": 0.556736319376149
    },
    "sha256": "c7ffd39d9047d7b7afd8149b93680f3139449af115f9771089efbf32b20376be",
    "simhash": "1:9003f2fb112849e3",
    "word_count": 404
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:19.966856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN PARKER vs. PENIL GILREATH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, J.\nThe defendant insists, that the writ of re-cordari was sued out by Parker only to obtain a new trial on his garnishment. And, as the affidavit filed in the cause satisfied the Court, that he was not entitled to a new trial, the recordari should have been dismissed. It was, therefore, error in the Court, to have made the order that it did.\nWhen we, however, look at the affidavit, on which the recordari was granted, we see that Parker prayed a re-cordari and supersedeas; and further, that the Court would \u201c grant such other and further relief, as may be necessary for him.\u201d The judgment rendered by the Court, in effect, to have the case spread upon the records of the Superior Court, to enable Parker to assign errors on it, if he thought proper to do so, and proceed as in a case of false judgment, was, we think, within the scope of his application for the writ of recordari. This writ is the foundation of all the .proceedings in a case of false judgment 2 Sellons1 Brae. 544, 248. We think that the judgment should be affirmed.\nPee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "De Choiseul, for the plaintiff.",
      "Badger, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN PARKER vs. PENIL GILREATH.\nThe writ of recordari is the foundation of all the proceedings in a case of false judgment.\nTherefore, where a recordari was returned and heard upon affidavits, the Court had a right to order the canse to be placed on the trial docket and stand there as on a writ of false judgment.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Henderson County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Caldwell presiding.\nThe defendant had issued an original attachment against one Cagle, returnable before a Justice of the Peace. The plaintiff had been summoned as a garnishee, and the Justice had rendered a judgment against him on his garnishment. The plaintiff, afterwards, made the affidavit mentioned in the case, and obtained from a Judge a writ of recordari, and removed the proceedings on the said attachment and garnishment junto the Superior Court of Henderson Count}'. In that Court, affidavits were iilod by both parties. And, after argument on them, the Court made the following order : Ordered that this cause be\nplaced on the trial docket, and stand there as on a writ of false judgment.\u201d From this order, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nDe Choiseul, for the plaintiff.\nBadger, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 230
}