{
  "id": 8681526,
  "name": "THOMAS W. SPARROW v. THE TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSON COLLEGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sparrow v. Trustees of Davidson College",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 35"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696972
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696972
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0399-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1902,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.868864229742705e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9004015292011233
    },
    "sha256": "3a57f91c62346fb6d35607735a935191ff0f43c7311033537a8b9a326af4a22d",
    "simhash": "1:ebc25b1d5ee26db1",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS W. SPARROW v. THE TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSON COLLEGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThe word \u201cor\u201d in ch. 63-, \u00a7 54, of Bat. Rev, evidently should be read \u201cand.\u201d It is probably a mere misprint. If a defendant be personally served with a Justice\u2019s warrant he has notice of the action and is bound to take notice of the judgment if one be taken against him. McDaniel v. Watkins, 76 N. C. 399, is therefore in point.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Shipp cf Bailey, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. A. Bunoell, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS W. SPARROW v. THE TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSON COLLEGE.\nServiee of Summons \u2014 Notice\u2014Appeal,\n1. Service of a summons is notice of an action and the defendant is bound! to take notice of the judgment therein if one be taken against him.\n3. Where a defendant appealed from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace upon the ground that the only notice he had of the action was the service of the summons ; Held, That the appeal was properly dismissed.\n3. The word \u201cor\u201d in Bat. Rev. oh. 63, \u00a7 54, should be read \u201cand.\u201d '\n{McDaniel v. Watkins, 76 N. C., 399, cited and approved.)\nMotion to dismiss an Appeal from a Justice\u2019s Court, heard. at Spring Term, 1877, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, before Cloud, J.\nIn 1876, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant before a Justice of the Peace. The summons was returned \u201cexecuted,\u201d and judgment rendered .in favor of plaintiff. No execution was issued upon the judgment. The defendant failed to appeal foi a considerable time after the ten days which elapsed after the rendition of judgment. The defendant did not appear at the trial, and had no notice of the judgment except in so far as the service of the summons may be treated as notice. The defendant craved an appeal within fifteen days after receiving notice, and in less than ten days thereafter, gave the proper notice of appeal, and an undertaking. The motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal was allowed by His Honor and the defendant appealed\nMessrs. Shipp cf Bailey, for plaintiff.\nMr. A. Bunoell, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 50
}