{
  "id": 8683931,
  "name": "STATE on the relation of E. S. P. LIPPARD v. JAMES C. ROSEMAN, Adm'r., &c., and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Lippard v. Roseman",
  "decision_date": "1874-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. 34"
    }
  ],
  "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": 188,
    "char_count": 2023,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4951536861218974e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6637624432930259
    },
    "sha256": "6e1617f0d47e28dc264caaa55e11b1ed338654cb33c10de8908a60ed415fc1ba",
    "simhash": "1:58490aa5de3e8c5c",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:06.826178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE on the relation of E. S. P. LIPPARD v. JAMES C. ROSEMAN, Adm\u2019r., &c., and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ByNUM, J.\nThe facts of this case do not materially differ 'from those stated in the opinion of the Court in the preceding case of Armfield v. Brown.\nAs we there held that ch. \u00a79, sec. 2, of the acts of 1866-\u201967 by virtue of which, a trial 'by jury was demanded, had been .repealed, that case is decisive of this and for the reasons there \u25a0stated, the judgment ef the Coart below is affirmed.\nThe case is remanded, to be proceeded with, according to the course of the Court.\nPee Cttkiak. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ByNUM, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "'Bailey and Fowle, for appellants.",
      "Craige & Orange, MeUorhle and Jones <& Jones, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE on the relation of E. S. P. LIPPARD v. JAMES C. ROSEMAN, Adm\u2019r., &c., and others.\nThe Act of 1866 \u2014 \u201967, chap. 59, sec. 2, is rejiealed by the Act of 1868-\u201969 and by chap. 121, Bat. Rev., so that a jury trial upon certain issues cannot under the provisions of that Act be now demanded.\nParties are entitled to a jury trial, in all cases when they have not waived their right to demand it, as they have in a reference by consent.\n(Armfield v. Brown, supra, cited and approved.)\nCivil ACTION, (suit on an administrator\u2019s bond,) beard before \"Cannon, J, at the Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of EowaN County.\nAt Fall Term, 1869, the action was referred to James E. \u2018Kerr, who returned his report at Spring Term, 1873, at which term exceptions were filed to the report by both plaintiff and defendant. Before the report of the referee was filed, the counsel for the defendants served a notice on the plaintiff\u2019s counsel, that they would move the Court, pursuant to the act of the General Assembly, of the session of 1866-\u201967, chap. 59, sec. 2, to submit the question of diligence or negligence of greater or less degree, which had arisen in the cause, to a j ury; and at Fall Term, 1873, the defendant\u2019s counsel did move his Honor, to make up and submit such issue to a jury, which motion the Court refused, on the ground that it was made too late.\nFrom this ruling of his Honor, defendants appealed to this Court.\n'Bailey and Fowle, for appellants.\nCraige & Orange, MeUorhle and Jones <& Jones, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 51
}