{
  "id": 2083702,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. ISAAC W. ROGERS v. PATRICK MCGOWAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Rogers v. McGowan",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "520",
  "last_page": "521",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. 520"
    }
  ],
  "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": 139,
    "char_count": 1729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.409,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3849617572011903e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27537339049496706
    },
    "sha256": "957f3dc65c4d9b502a0fc701308585d3e78a2e3cbd2b42adb03fee03414804db",
    "simhash": "1:8cdf66c4e6d7fabb",
    "word_count": 310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:25.985368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. ISAAC W. ROGERS v. PATRICK MCGOWAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe questions in this case are substantially the same as in The People ex rel. Nichols et al. v. McKee et al., and The People ex rel. Welker et al. v. Bledsoe et al., both at this term, and are governed by the same principles and for the same reasons.\nThere will be judgment that the defendant be excluded from,said office, and that the plaintiff recover his costs.\nNo error.\nPee Cueiam.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J. Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fowle and Merrimon, for appellant.",
      "Batchelor, Edwards & Batchelor, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. ISAAC W. ROGERS v. PATRICK MCGOWAN.\nThe Act of 2d February, 1872, entitled, \u201cAn Act in 2-elation to tl2e election of Keeper of the Capitol,\u201d is void, and confers no power on the General Assembly to appoint that officer.\n(People of N. O. ex rel. Nichols et al. v. McKee et al. ante 429; People ex rel. Welker et al. v Bledsoe et al. ante 457, cited and approved.)\nCivil action, for the recovery of the office of the Keeper of the Capitol, tried at the Fall Term, 1872, of Wake Superior Court, befQre-his Honor, Watts, J.\nOn the 27th March, 1872, the relator was appointed Keeper of the Capitol by the Governor, and demanded the office of the defendant who was performing the duties thereof under an appointment of the General Assembly. The act entitled \u201c An Act in relation to the election of Keeper of the Capitol,\u201d under which the defendant claimed the office, was ratified the 2d day of February, 1872. The question as to the constitutionality of this act being argued, before his Honor in the Court below, he gave judgment in favor of the relator for the same reasons that are fully set out in the cases referred to in the opinion of the Court. From this judgment defendant appealed.\nFowle and Merrimon, for appellant.\nBatchelor, Edwards & Batchelor, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0520-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 531
}