{
  "id": 8693599,
  "name": "CHARLES SKINNER v. J. Y. BRYCE, and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Skinner v. Bryce",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 287"
    }
  ],
  "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": 192,
    "char_count": 2990,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3463161365778468
    },
    "sha256": "661234831f170da6dbd95b3e92cec5dc3129f137a9791702600294f690d7e063",
    "simhash": "1:febea4c2badfc593",
    "word_count": 528
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES SKINNER v. J. Y. BRYCE, and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe sickness of the family of one of the defendants at the time of the trial, so that he could not attend,, was a circumstance which might have been addressed to the discretion of his Honor upon a motion to continue. But the defendant\u2019s counsel was present, knew of the sickness, did not ask for a continuance, but went into the trial by consent, upon the plantiff\u2019s agreeing to permit to be read in evidence certain letters which he had, and which were in fact read.\nWhen judgment has been rendered against a party by reason of his \u201c surprise, mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,\u201d the statute allows the court to vacate it at any time within a year. But this motion was not supported by any of these considerations. It was a trial by consent. And we agree with his Honor that there is no ground for vacating.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fleming and Gray & Stamps, for defendants.",
      "Gilliam & Pruden, for the plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES SKINNER v. J. Y. BRYCE, and others.\nThe illness of the family of one ofj the defendants in an action, so that he cannot he present at the trial of the cause, is a circumstance which may properly be addressed to the discretion of the court upon a motion to continue the cause. But where such defendant is represented by counsel, who has knowledge of the fact, and does not ask for a continuance, but enters into a trial by consent upon the plaintiff's agreeing to permit certain letters to be read in evidence, and in pursuance of the agreement the letters are read, the facts do not present a case of \u201c surprise, mistake,\u201d &c., contemplated by the statute, and the judgment will not be vacated.\nMotion in the cause heard before Eure, J., at Spring Term, 1875, of Perquimans Superior Court.\nThe defendants moved to set aside a judgment theretofore rendered against them. The defendants resided in the City of Charlotte, and the plaintiff resided in Perquimans County. When the action commenced, but before the trial of the cause, he had removed to Hertford county, where he now resides.\nThe case was called for trial at Spring Term, 1875, when the counsel for the defendants stated, that he had information that the family of the defendant, Gregory, who was the managing partner, were sick, and that he did not expect him at that Court, but did not move for a continuance. By agreement of counsel, the case was put at the end of the docket, the plaintiff\u2019s counsel consenting to the reading of certain letters, upon the trial, because of the absence of the defendants. The case was tried, and the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment.\nAfter the adjournment of the Court, the defendants\u2019 counsel received affidavits showing the illness of the family of the defendant, Gregory, at the time of the trial, which he forwarded to his Honor, at home, and asked him to consider at Chamber\u2019s, as upon a motion to set aside the judgment and verdict. His Honor refused to do so, but agreed to hear evidence upon both sides at the next term of the Court.\nFleming and Gray & Stamps, for defendants.\nGilliam & Pruden, for the plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 295,
  "last_page_order": 297
}