{
  "id": 2083622,
  "name": "THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON COUNTY v. WM. ADDINGTON and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Commissioners v. Addington",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. 254"
    }
  ],
  "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": 179,
    "char_count": 2709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "sha256": "d5c958db41ed959fdac98c608763b3a1b26619fafceb54f5ec83bad2513a927e",
    "simhash": "1:720f7abdbb9719b2",
    "word_count": 479
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:25.985368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON COUNTY v. WM. ADDINGTON and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, J.\nHis Honor was mistaken in supposing that this was a case for his decision at Chambers. The case should have been placed on the trial, or issue docket, to be tried de novo, as has been repeatedly decided in this Court.\nIt is when the sum recovered against the defendant is less than $25.00, or when the plaintiff\u2019s demand does not exceed that sum, that his Honor is to decide the case at Chambers; but when .the plaintiff\u2019s claim is for more than twenty-five \u2022 dollars, as in this case it is for more than eighty dollars, and he recovered nothing, or less than twenty-five dollars, but a judgment is rendered against the plaintiff, the appeal is to be placed upon the trial, or issue docket, to be tried anew in the Superior Court upon the facts, as was decided in the case of Cowles v. Haynes, 67 N. C. Rep. 128, and the case of Wells v. Sluderi at this term.\nThis disposes of the case in this Court, and renders it unnecessary to notice the other points made in the case.\nThere is error.\nThis will be certified.\nPer Curiam.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dupre and Jones & Jones, for appellants.",
      "A. S. Merrimon, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON COUNTY v. WM. ADDINGTON and others.\nAn appeal hy a plaintiff, from a judgment rendered against him in a Justice\u2019s Court, for $6.30, costs in a suit against the defendant on an account for over $80.00, should be entered by the Clerk on the trial, or civil issue docket, of the Superior Court, to be tried de novo. Such appeal cannot be heard by the Judge at Chambers.\n(Cowles v. Saynes, 67 N. C. Rep. 128; and Wells v. Sluder, decided at this term cited and approved.)\nCivil action, determined by Cannon, J., at Chambers, in Macon county, July 10th, 1872.\nThe plaintiffs sued the defendants, who were mail contractors, on an account for tolls due Jackson county, in a .Justice\u2019s Court of Macon county. The account was for $82.30. The Justice gave a judgment in favor of defendants and against the plaintiffs for $6.60 costs, and the plaintiffs .appealed.\nThe transcript of the Justice\u2019s record being sent to his Honor, he adjudged that the judgment being for a less sum than twenty-five dollars, the case was properly before him at Chambers. And a motion by the plaintiffs that the case be remanded to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Macon county, with directions that it be placed on the Civil Issue Docket, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction of the matter, unless in term time, the amount in controversy being over twenty-five dollars, was overruled. From which judgment, the plaintiffs appealed.\nOther points, unnecessary to state, were made before his Honor, the case being decided in this Court upon the question of jurisdiction.\nDupre and Jones & Jones, for appellants.\nA. S. Merrimon, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 264,
  "last_page_order": 265
}