{
  "id": 2092636,
  "name": "C. F. WATSON vs. C. C. and W. H. SHIELDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. Shields",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "235",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. 235"
    }
  ],
  "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": 275,
    "char_count": 4363,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.910444093458357e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46127148725659295
    },
    "sha256": "d8b9cbb2e9e7f07a3e253b1fdd0b8e0ec726a3a8022be3efe3df8dd8dff0fb8e",
    "simhash": "1:d0c289afdbac0050",
    "word_count": 762
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:25.131400+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. F. WATSON vs. C. C. and W. H. SHIELDS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eeade, J.\nThe C. C. P., S. 133, authorizes a judge to \u201c relieve a party from a judgment, order, or other proceedings taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence surprise, or excusable neglect,\u201d &c. And upon application for such relief, the Judge finds the facts, and grants, or refuses the motion, and from his judgment an appeal lies by either party. This is much more convenient, expeditions, and less, expensive than an application to the Supreme Court for a Certiorari, as a substitute for an appeal. Under our new Constitution, it is much the more appropriate remedy, as the Judge below finds the facts, and we only review his legal conclusions; whereas, in applications for certiorari we have to find the facts, and although it may not be within the provision, that we shall try no \u201c issue \u201d of fact; yet we prefer not to try, when it can be avoided, any \u201c question\u201d of fact, as contradistinguished from an issue of fact.\nIn this case the facts are. seriously disputed, and we think the petitioner ought to proceed by an application to the Judge below, under O. C. P., S. 133.\nMotion for certiarori refused, and petition dismissed.\nPer Curiam. Petition dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eeade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clark da Mullen, and Busbee da Busbee, for petitioner.",
      "Moore dia Catling, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. F. WATSON vs. C. C. and W. H. SHIELDS.\nUnder the C. O. P., sec. 133, a Judge may, in his discretion, and upon such terms as he may think just, at any time within a year after notice, relieve a party from a judgment order, or other proceedings taken against him, by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or other excusable neglect.\nJJuder the new Constitution, application to a Judge is the more appropriate remedy, as ho finds the facts and the Supreme Court only reviews his legal conclusions; whereas, in applications for certiorari the Court must find the facts And although it may not come within the prohibition that the \u201c Supreme Court shall not try issues of fact,\u201d yet the Court prefers not to try \u2018-questions of fact,\u2019\u2019 as contradistinguished from \u201cissues of fact,\u201d when it can be avoided.\nThis was an application for a writ of certiorari, made at January Term, 1872, o\u00ed the Supreme Court.\nThe petition ot plaintiff stated, that a certain civil action had been brought by bim against the defendants, in Halifax Superior Court, in which said action be sought to cancel, upon the ground of fraud, among other things, a certain deed made by himself to one of the defendants, C. C. Shield, and a deed made by him to the other defendant, W. H. Shield. That said action was tried in Halifax Superior Court, at a special Term, in December, 1871, before his Honor S. W. Watts, and that the jury did \u201cfind, that the deeds above mentioned be set aside and that plaintiff pay to the defendant the sum of $165 and interest, being the purchase money paid by said defendant;\u201d that tlie petitioner thereupon, through his counsel, prayed judgment that an account be taken of the rents, &c., during the possession of the defendant. That the Court declared a purpose to order such account, and to that end a judgment or decree was prepared by petitioner\u2019s counsel, and was sent to bis Honor S. W. Watts, for bis signature. That about a week after the Court, r letter was written by the Judge to the Clerk, directing him. to enter tip judgment for canceling the deeds, recon veying, &c., but refusing the order for an account- That petitioner\u2019s counsel was not informed of the decision of his Honor in time to appeal therefrom, and not of the refusal of his Honor to approve and sign the judgment or decree as proposed by his counsel until the 10th daj7 of February, 18Y2.\nThe defendants filed an answer to the petition, setting out \u00e1 statement of facts very different from that made by petitioner. They alleged that petitioner, through his counsel, had notice of the formal judgment signed and filed by His Honor in time to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. The defendants further alleged, that the petitioner \u201callowed the time in which to appeal to pass away, through the hope and purpose of being able to induce the Judge, through his counsel, to revoke, alter or add to 1ns first judgment.\u201d That the verdict of the jury, &c, did not, or would not, authorize the judgment claimed by the defendants, &c.\nUpon the petition and answer, and after argument, the Court ordered the petition to be dismissed.\nClark da Mullen, and Busbee da Busbee, for petitioner.\nMoore dia Catling, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0235-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 247
}