{
  "id": 8681925,
  "name": "R. F. SIMONTON, Adm'r. &c., v. GEORGE W. CHIPLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simonton v. Chipley",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "152",
  "last_page": "153",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 152"
    }
  ],
  "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": 217,
    "char_count": 2826,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.364,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47396624281956207
    },
    "sha256": "b3381369012608086c829d7a71006b1a6e0e9cc65b531a31ebfad330b525a32f",
    "simhash": "1:e013aae866b44c0c",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. F. SIMONTON, Adm\u2019r. &c., v. GEORGE W. CHIPLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick, J.\nThis court cannot review the judgment in the court below, as it was rendered in the exercise of a discretionary power in matters of fact.\nThe appellate jurisdiction of this court extends only to the correction of errors in law. It cannot hear evidence in a cause, and of course cannot properly determine questions, depending upon facts.\nThis doctrine has been so fully discussed, and is so well settled, that it is unnecessary for us to consider it further: Britt v. Patterson, 10 Ire. 390; Bagley v. Wood, 12 Id. 90.\nWe concur in the ruling of his Honor in the court below, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAs the records of the late County Court are now under the control of the Superior Court, that coiut must make the amendment ordered by the County Court, and the parties can proceed as they may be advised.\nLet this be certified.\nPer Curiam:. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Caldwell for the appellant.",
      "Clement 8c Boyden and Bailey, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. F. SIMONTON, Adm\u2019r. &c., v. GEORGE W. CHIPLEY.\nThe Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over questions of law only, and so cannot review the exercise of a discretionary power over matters of fact:\nTherefore, it cannot review a question as to the propriety of an order striking out a judgment for irregularity; turning, in some degree, upon whether it were given without a verdict, and in the absence of the defendant and his attorney.\nWhere an order of amendment given in the County Court, had been appealed from, and, pending the appeal, that Court had been abolished,' and its records transferred to the Superior Court; Held, that upon an affirmation of the order, the amendment should be made in the latter Court.\n[BriU v. Patterson, 10 Ire. 390, and Bagley v. Wood, 12 Id. 90j cited and approved.)\nMotior to set aside a judgment, heard by Buxton, J., at July Special Term 1869 of Iredell Court.\nThe question had been brought by appeal from the County Court of that county, in which at August Term 1867, an order had been made, upon the motion of the defendant, to-set aside a judgment in debt, taken by the plaintiff\u2019s intestate against him, at August Term 1861.\nIn support of his motion the defendant had introduced' evidence that upon the reton of the writ in the action (May-Term 1861) he had appeared, and pleaded General Issue, Payment-and-set-off, and Statute-of-Limitations; and that at the next term, in his absence, and the absence of his attorney, an entry of \u201c Judg\u2019t \u201d had been made on the docket,\u2014 upon which, execution had been issued for $78893 and costs, &c.; that the affiant was not informed of the rendition of the judgment for a long time after, &c.\nProm the order to vacate such judgment and amend the record mine pro tunc, &c., the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court.\nHis Honor affirmed that judgment, and the plaintiff appealed again.\nW. P. Caldwell for the appellant.\nClement 8c Boyden and Bailey, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0152-01",
  "first_page_order": 176,
  "last_page_order": 177
}