{
  "id": 2088702,
  "name": "J. M. WRIGHT v. J. & E. B. STOWE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Stowe",
  "decision_date": "1860-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "7 Jones 622"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. 622"
    }
  ],
  "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": 169,
    "char_count": 1987,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "sha256": "e548cb80d5d52837b71207ebc6801db89101c702554ffc03acd0e880d6c1f839",
    "simhash": "1:58b8d08d1d31bc52",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:19.129964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. WRIGHT v. J. & E. B. STOWE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaesoN, C. J.\nThere is Ho error in the order made in the Court below, on the question of costs. The provision of the statute is in express terms, and the order is in pursuance thereto. So, we presume, the appeal was taken in this case, as has been done in many other cases of appeal to the Morganton Term, which is only held once a year, merely for the sake of delay.\nThe final judgment which this Court is authorised to render in \u201c civil cases,\u201d is to be made \u201c on inspection of the whole record.\u201d \u2019The transcript filed, does not purport to set out the whole record, \u201cbut only enough to present the points in. issue.\u201d\nThis short hand way of getting the opinion of the Supreme Court, on a point of law, without much expense to either party, cannot be tolerated; and as the whole record is not before us, we can give no judgment until a full exemplification of the record is filed.\nPee Curiam,\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaesoN, C. J. Pee Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boydm and Bynmn, for the plaintiff.",
      "\u25a0 Thompson, Lcmder, Awry and McGorJde for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. WRIGHT v. J. & E. B. STOWE.\nThis Court cannot proceed to judgment without an inspection of the whole record. Where, therefore, in a proceeding to recover damages for ponding water back on plaintiff\u2019s land, by agreement of counsel, only so much of the record was sent up as was \u201cnecessary to present the points in issue,\u201d this Court refused to give judgment.\nThis was a proceeding by a petition to recover damages for overflowing plaintiff\u2019s land, tried before Heath, J.\nThe jury gave for several successive years less than $8.00, whereupon the Judge ordered that no more costs than damages, should be recovered, from which the plaintiff appealed to this Court.\nIn the Court below, it was agreed by the counsel on both sides, that \u201c the clerk need not copy the whole record in this case, but only enough to present the points in issue,\u201d and he did not make a full record, but only sent a representation of the substance of the petition, &c., and a brief history of the trial.\nBoydm and Bynmn, for the plaintiff.\n\u25a0 Thompson, Lcmder, Awry and McGorJde for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 630,
  "last_page_order": 631
}