{
  "id": 11277236,
  "name": "In re WILLIAM L. TATE",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Tate",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "308",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 308"
    }
  ],
  "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": 138,
    "char_count": 1805,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.404,
    "sha256": "11df63c9c8715a89e9faae1b1a5562a9b03d49f06a7d04a591ca6b9678cb7e15",
    "simhash": "1:11863e455982ecfc",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re WILLIAM L. TATE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe petitioner was a county attorney before the 'rebellion, and took part in that rebellion by serving in the \u25a0Confederate army, voluntarily, as we take it. He now seeks to .be admitted into the office of Solicitor for the State in the 12th Judicial District.\nWe are of the opinion that he is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the \u00bfUnited States. The opinion in the case of Worthy v. Barrett .and others, ante 199, is referred to as establishing the rule in fthis case. The prayer for a mandamus must be refused.\nPer Curiam. * Petition dismissed with costs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Phillips & Merrimon, for the petitioner.",
      "Attorney General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re WILLIAM L. TATE.\nA county attorney is within the provisions of the XIYth Amendment of the* Constitution of the United States, disqualifying certain persons from, holding office.\nPearsoit, C. J., dissenting.\n{Worthy v. Barrett, ante 199, cited and approved.)\nPETITION for a Mandamus, filed in this Court.\nThe petition alleged that the petitioner had been duly elected Solicitor of the 12th Judicial District, and subsequently had received from General Canby a certificate of that fact; but that upon producing the same to his Honor, Judge Cannon, in the Superior Court of Haywood, and' requesting to be qualified, he had refused his application, upon the ground that he was disabled by the XIYth Amendment to tibe Constitution of the United States. The prayer was for sa mandamus, to be directed to his Honor, &c., &c.\nNote. \u2014 Pearson, C. J., dissents from the opinion in Worthy v. Bwrett, aso far as it includes county attorneys.\nIt was admitted that the petitioner had been a county attorney Ibefore the recent rebellion, and that during such rebellion he 2iad been an officer in the army of the Confederate States.\nPhillips & Merrimon, for the petitioner.\nAttorney General, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0308-01",
  "first_page_order": 324,
  "last_page_order": 325
}