{
  "id": 1955328,
  "name": "ISAAC BATES v. HINSDALE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bates v. Hinsdale",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 423"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955397
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 5198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.418,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6010190169388254
    },
    "sha256": "fa2b9b72f892d4334c10b4d43db448409a2b57f69b1a1e14baf809ab8c8cc5cd",
    "simhash": "1:a8e2a029cc29f74b",
    "word_count": 927
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ISAAC BATES v. HINSDALE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nTbe question in regard to tbe application o\u00ed the proceeds of the sale of the personal property, having been disposed of, as was stated at the bar, the case is now confined to the question in regard to the application of the proceeds of the sale of the house and lot.\n\u2022 His Plonor ruled, that the fund be applied rateably to all of the executions. \u00a5e regret not to be able to concur in this conclusion \u2022 for, \u201c equality is equity.\u201d The parties all used diligence, and the difference is simply in respect to time. But these j ndgments and the proceedings had thereon, being rendered and done in 1870, must be governed by the C. C. P. alone; and according to it, time in docketing judgments, is made material, and the miller\u2019s rule is adopted; \u201c first come, first served.\u201d\nGrant, that the day during which a Justice of the Peace renders judgments, is his Term, and has the same legal incidents, as the Term of a Court, so that all of the judgments, to use the language of his Honor, are \u201c eotemporaneous,\u201d we can see no \u25a0ground on which this principle can be applied to the action of the clerk in docketing judgments, in the face of the provision of C. C. P. see. 503: \u201c The time of the receipt of the transcript by the clerk, shall be noted thereon, and entered m the docket; and from that time, the judgment shall be a judgment \u2022of the Superior Court in all respects.\u201d Time is sometimes used as synonymous with day, as when one asks, \u201c at what time in April, was the act done ?\u201d Eeply, \u201c on the 4th day\u201d \u2014 here time and day are treated as the same in meaning. But if asked, \u201c at what time of the day, was the act done \u201d? obviously the meaning of the two words would not be the same.\nTime in the section under consideration, is material; as it is in regard to the registration of deeds of trust; when the most the Court could do by construction, was to treat deeds as being registered the moment they are handed to the officer, as it is in regard to the levy of executions on personal property.\nThis matter was fully argued and considered by us in John son v. Sedberry, at last Term, 65 N. C. 1. The Court was not able then, and is not able now, to see how the mischief could be remedied, by construction merely, and felt obliged to have recourse to the power conferred by section 394, of prescribing rules of practice and procedure; and did at that Term, prescribe a rule; but that rule can have no application to the present case, for all of these proceedings were had before the adoption of the rule, and must stand solely upon the C. C. P., as it is written.\nThere is error. The fund must be applied to the several executions, giving priority, according to the times in the day at which the transcripts were received by the clerk. Judgment of the Superior Court reversed, and judgment in conformity to this opinion.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reveresd.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bragg c& Strong and McRae for the plaintiffs.",
      "Ph\u00fclvps <& Merrimon and B. & T. G. Fuller for the defendants. __"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ISAAC BATES v. HINSDALE et al.\nThe law takes notice of the fractional parts of a day when there is a conflict between creditors arising as to the application of money receives! on Justices\u2019 judgments filed and docketed on the same day. Sec. 5Q3, C. C. P.\nTherefore judgments filed and docketed at 2 o\u2019clock, 80 minutes P. M.\u201e have priority over judgments filed and docketed at a later hour of the same day.\nRule upon the defendant Robert W. Hardie, Sheriff of Cumberland County, to show cause why money in his hands, the proceeds of sale of personal and real property of the Bank of Fayetteville, sold under executions, should not be applied to the payment of the executions in favor of plaintiff heard before jBuxton, J , at Spring Term, 1871, of Cumberland Superior \u25a0Court.\nThe Sheriff made return that the defendants were contesting claimants to the fund in his hands, and asked that they be made parties, \"whereupon the defendants accepted service of summons, appeared and litigated their rights.\nThe facts are that on the 4th day of April, 1870, the plaintiff and the defendants all obtained judgments against the Bank of Fayetteville, amounting to one hundred and fifty-six cases. In the language of his Honor who tried the cause, \u201c there was quite a rush \u201d amongst the creditors, in trying to get the first judgments.\nThe transcripts in the plaintiff' Bates\u2019 fifteen judgments, as also those of the defendants John W. Hinsdale and Samuel J. Hinsdale were filed in the Clerk's office on the 4th of April, 1870, .and marked \u201c filed at 2 o\u2019clock, 30 minutes, P. M.\u201d\nThe other defendants having one hundred and nineteen judgments, made \u201c quick time \u201d in procuring transcripts, and having the same filed, which were endorsed by the Clerk, \u201cfiled and docketed 4th of April, 1870, at 3 o\u2019clock, 35 minutes, P. M.,\u201d excepting the two judgments of the defendant, Pemberton, which were docketed at 4 o\u2019clock, 10 minutes, P. M.\nHis Honor was of opinion and so decided, that the proceeds of the realty should be applied ratably amongst all the judgments and executions. It is unnecessary to report his ruling as to the application of the proceeds of the personalty. From the ruling of his Honor the defendant Hinsdale appealed.\nBragg c& Strong and McRae for the plaintiffs.\nPh\u00fclvps <& Merrimon and B. & T. G. Fuller for the defendants. __"
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 436
}