{
  "id": 11277856,
  "name": "JAMES A. JOHNSON v. JOHN T. JUDD, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Judd",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 498"
    }
  ],
  "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": 227,
    "char_count": 2912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531759573627652
    },
    "sha256": "844164ece24a4ba9292f8c7c7073da186e331fa93bfb14bed3e35a67e9280850",
    "simhash": "1:df70e4d9c73a4f5a",
    "word_count": 522
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES A. JOHNSON v. JOHN T. JUDD, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThis action was commenced by a summons, dated 5th January 1869, which required the defendants \u201cto' -appear before the Judge of our Superior Court of Law at a Court to' be held for the county of Harnett, at the Court House in Lillington, on the second Monday of Eebuary &c.\u201d This was erroneous: Section 73 C. C. P., says, the summons shall require the defendant \u201cto appear at the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court\u201d within a certain number of days after the service &e.\u201d The difference is material, as was pointed out in Smith v. McIlwaine ante 95, because there is no day in which the pleadings can be made up before the Judge. The pleadings are to be filed in the Clerk\u2019s office, and jurisdiction is given to him to decide, in the first instance, on all questions \u2022 of practice and procedure arising in the .course of coming to . an issue. Sec. 108. 0. C. P.\nAt Spring Term 1869, the defendants appeared and moved \u2022 to dismiss the summons,\u201d on the ground, as the case states, \u201cthat it was not a summons,\u201d by which we understand to be meant, that it was not in conformity to the Code; the Judge refused \u25a0to dismiss, and the defendants appealed to this Court. It seems \u25a0 to us clear that, as the law stood at that time, the Judge should have dismissed the summons or have imposed upon the plaintiff the alternative of amending it. After the appeal however, the Legislature, by an act entitled \u201cAn Act to amend certain irregularities in the mode of commencing certain actions\u201d &c., \u25a0ratified 1st April 1869, enacted that \u201cin all civil actions heretofore commenced, in which the process has been or shall be made returnable \u201cbefore the Judge,\u201d no advantage shall be had or taken by reason thereof, but the same shall be held regular, and may be amended as to the process and pleadings at any time, without costs, but upon such other terms as to .the Judge of the Court shall seem just\u201d &c. The error committed by the Judge makes it necessary to reverse his decision, but in consequence of the statute, this Court cannot dismiss the case, nor can it allow the summons to be amended, and the pleadings to be made up here; it is necessary therefore to send the \u2022case back to tbe Judge of the Superior Court, iu order that he. may proceed as required by the statute.\nPer Curiam. Order accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. McKay, for the appellants.",
      "No counsel, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES A. JOHNSON v. JOHN T. JUDD, et al.\nWrits of summons issued in January 1869, shouldhave been returnable before the Clerk, and therefore if made returnable before the Judge at Spring Term 1869, on motion by the defendant to that effect, should have been dismissed. Since then the act of April 1 1869,\u00a1\u201cto amend certain irregularities\u201d &c., allows such errors to be cured by amendment &c.\nMOTION to dismiss a summons, heard before Buxton, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of Haenett.\nThe facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion.\nW. McKay, for the appellants.\nNo counsel, contra,"
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 514,
  "last_page_order": 516
}