{
  "id": 11278472,
  "name": "JOHN PATRICK, Adm'r. v. WILLIAM JOYNER, Adm'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patrick v. Joyner",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 573"
    }
  ],
  "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": 210,
    "char_count": 2913,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9686298664587865e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7390218503086473
    },
    "sha256": "a3b81a8af84e5583697ddc2a6d8b01908ba919e9deddf56921486fc5e38a6a73",
    "simhash": "1:467360e0403b4e47",
    "word_count": 503
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN PATRICK, Adm\u2019r. v. WILLIAM JOYNER, Adm\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nWe regret that we are precluded from considering this case on its merits, by reason of the irregularity of the proceedings. Sec. 70, C. C. P. requires that all civil actions shall be commenced by the issuing of a summons. Sec. 190 says: \u201cThe injunction may be granted at the time of \u25a0commencing the action, or at any time afterwards before judgment,\u201d &c. In this case the action was attempted to be commenced, by a writing in the nature of a bill in Equity, sworn to on 26th Nov. .1868, and presented to the District Judge, who on the 30th Nov. 1868, ordered that on the plaintiffs .giving bond before the Clerk of Pitt Superior Court \u201cthe said Clerk will issue the injunction prayed for, and also a copy of \u25a0 the complaint and affidavit with a summons to the defendant, returnable to the nest term of the Superior Court, of Pitt.\u201d Thereupon an injunction issued enjoining \u201cfrom further proceedings, under and by virtue of the judgment referred to in plaintiff's complaint,\u201d &c., until further order; and also a summons dated 7th December, 1868, requiring the defendant, to appear before the Judge at the next regular Term of Pitt Superior Court. At that time the defendant appeared and moved to dissolve the injunction, which was disallowed, and he appealed. The injunction issued irregularly and prematurely, and the Judge-for that reason should have dissolved itr allowing, however, to the plaintiff the liberty of amending it, if he thought it just to do so. Not only was the injunction issued before the action had been commenced, but it was1 ii-regular in form, as was explained in Smith v. McIlwaine ante 95, and in Johnson v. Judd, at this Term.\nThe latter defect, however, was cured or amendable by the Act ratified 1st April, 1869, referred to in that case, but the former was not. The opinion of this Court is that the injunction be dissolved, and the case remanded for such further action by the Superior Court of Pitt, as may be proper. The defendant will recover costs in this Court.\nLet this opinion be certified.\nPee CURIAH. Injunction dissolved.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson, for the appellant.",
      "Hilliard, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN PATRICK, Adm\u2019r. v. WILLIAM JOYNER, Adm\u2019r.\nInasmuch as the Code requires injunctions to be issued at the t\u00f3me of commencing the action or at any time afterwards before final juclg-. meat; and as by that Code all civil actions must be commenced by summons: Held that an injunction ordered by the Judge upon reading the complaint, coupled with an order at the same time to issue a copy of the complaint, and a summons to the defendant, was irregular and premature, and therefore should be dissolved.\n,{Smith v. Mellwaine, ante 73, and Johnson v. Judd, ante 498, cited and approved.)\nMotioN to dissolve an injunction, beard by Jones, J., at \u25a0Spring Term 1869, of the Superior Court of Pitt.\nThe facts are stated in tbe Opinion.\nHis Honor having disallowed the motion, the defendant appealed.\nJohnson, for the appellant.\nHilliard, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 589,
  "last_page_order": 590
}