{
  "id": 11277886,
  "name": "JAMES MURPHY v. ALEXANDER H. MERRITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murphy v. Merritt",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 502"
    }
  ],
  "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": 140,
    "char_count": 1916,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3959502070250344e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7983720286395075
    },
    "sha256": "3969c830c6a31929bb89a25154bb2305421011e9b6ba67a686341559ce7e70dd",
    "simhash": "1:6945fa8d706c2559",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES MURPHY v. ALEXANDER H. MERRITT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nIt is settled that a regular final judgment can mot be set aside at a subsequent term on motion. , The judgment in this case was regular, and had the additional force of being by consent of parties. The fact that the defendant\u2019s counsel consented under the false representation of a third person that his client was willing to pay it, makes no difference.\nThe effect of the appeal from the order vacating the judgment, was to leave the judgment and execution in full force; and the money raised under the execution will be paid over to the plaintiff. There was error. Judgment here for the plaintiff for costs.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "<'Strange, for appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES MURPHY v. ALEXANDER H. MERRITT.\nA regular final judgment can not be set aside at a subsequent term on motion, even although it was entered under a misapprehension-of counsel.\nAn appeal from an order to vacate a judgment, leaves such judgment, and any execution issued under it, in full force.\nMotion to set .aside a judgment, heard by Russdl, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of Sampson.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel moved-to, set..aside a judgment rendered in an action of irouer,.at Pall Term .1867 .-in favor of the -plaintiff. The judgment had been entered by \u00a1consent of-the \u2022defendant\u2019s .counsel. It appeared ,tp the-Court -that .one Mer-iritt.had represented to the defendant\u2019s counsel that the defen-dant would be satisfiedwith this arrangement, provided the \u2022costs did not exceed twenty-five dollars; and that, acting upon dhis .statement, the counsel consented -to the judgment. It appeared further that the costs exceeded twenty-five dollars, and that the defendant had never authorized Merritt to instruct his counsel to consent to the judgment.\nThe Court ordered the judgment in this case to be vacated, and the case to be reinstated on the docket. From this order the plaintiff appealed.\n<'Strange, for appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 518,
  "last_page_order": 519
}