{
  "id": 8688323,
  "name": "JAMES I MOORE and others v. RICHARD D. JONES and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "188",
  "last_page": "189",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 188"
    }
  ],
  "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": 201,
    "char_count": 2355,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.848989183728895e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41763496636290376
    },
    "sha256": "23166b4c98d36cd48a1dd6431b596ad3d24d6f8cd1f9439e2623849dfb3a8d43",
    "simhash": "1:1b57e492671b978d",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES I MOORE and others v. RICHARD D. JONES and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PearsoN, C. J.\nThe decision in respect t.o the \u2018\u2018Board of' \u25a0Commissioners,\u201d leaves but little that need be said in respect-to these defendants.\nThe Board of Commissioners certified that these persons-were elected. This certificate was superseded by the writ of mandamus, \u201c per se,\u201d from the nature of the thing, the one being a mere sequence of the other; that is, the certificate owed its vitality to the action of the Board, which the mandamus vacated, and of course was vacated with it.\nIt follows, that if these parties had presumed to exercise the duties of their offices,- after notice of the writ of mandamus, they would have been in contempt for a defiance of what has been termed \u201c the grand prerogative writ \u201d of mandamus.\nThis being so, the fact that they are included in the summons and that the complaint asks for a restraining order and injunction, and the fact that such orders were made, were mere matters of supererogation and could do no harm.\nWe are of opinion that there is no error in the ruling of His Honor, of which the defendants have a right to complain.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PearsoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller $ Ashe and T. B. Venable, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. L. C. Edwards and J. B Batchelor for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES I MOORE and others v. RICHARD D. JONES and others.\nMandamus \u2014 Canvass of Votes \u2014 Restraining Order.\nWhen a mandamus is granted to compel a re-canvass of election returns'. bjr a Board of County Commissioners, Held, not to be error to grant at-the same time an order restraining- the persons declared elected upon the first canvass from exercising the duties of their offices.\nAppeal from a Restraining Order made at Chambers in Franklin ton on the 14th day of December, 1876, by Watts, X\nThq defendant C\u00f3mmissioners declared the defendant James B. Crews elected Sheriff of Granville ( ounty at an election held on the 7th day of November, 1876, and the defendants James B Hobgood, John Morgan and Elijah C.. Montague, each elected to the office of ( ounty ('ommissioner at said election.\nUpon application of the plaintiffs an order was issued restraining and enjoining said defendants declared elected as-aforesaid, from qualifying or in any way attempting to hold said offices, or to perform any of the duties incident thereto.\nThe facts stated in the preceding case are applicable to-this. Defendants appealed.\nMessrs. Merrimon, Fuller $ Ashe and T. B. Venable, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. L. C. Edwards and J. B Batchelor for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0188-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 201
}