{
  "id": 8686148,
  "name": "LILLY & BRO. v. ARCHIBALD PURCELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lilly & Bro. v. Purcell",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 82"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 N. C. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698697
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085536
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698697
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5447242080583757e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8137592191668317
    },
    "sha256": "1cad1f0bdd1451409a50062455ac32edeb6d76dbb1333aee1cc092e0ad16ff4c",
    "simhash": "1:cabdd4f1325215f8",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LILLY & BRO. v. ARCHIBALD PURCELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, J.\nThe plaintiff', a citizen of New Hanover County, brought this action before a Justice of the Peace in said County, against the defendant, a citizen of Robeson County, by sending process to the latter County, as provided by statute in certain cases. Did the Justice have jurisdiction ?\nIn Wooten v. Maultsby, 69 N. C, 462, it is said there was no such jurisdiction; but that was not the main question involved in that case, and it was probably not discussed. In Sossamer v. Hinson, 72 N. C. 578, it was held that the Justice Nad jurisdiction under a proper construction of Bat. Rev. ch. 63 \u00a7 50, and so the law continued until the Act of 1876-\u201977, ch. 287, ratified March 12th, 1877, after the present action was commenced; which Act in explicit terms takes away jurisdiction in a case like the present. Let judgment be entered here for the plaintiff according to the judgment below.\nNo error.\nFeR CuRIAm. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Wright Stedman, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. McNeil McNeil, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LILLY & BRO. v. ARCHIBALD PURCELL.\nJustices of the Peace \u2014 Jurisdiction.\nThe act of 1876-7, ch. 287, ousting the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in civil actions where none of the defendants reside in the Justice\u2019s county, does not apply to an action commenced before the passage of the act.\n(Wooten v. Maultsby, 69 N. C. 462 ; Sossamer v. Hinson, 72 N. C. 578, cited, distinguished and approved.)\nCivil Action, commenced before a Justice of tbe Peace? &nd tried on appeal, at June Term, 1877, of New Hanover Superior Court, before Seymour, J.\nUpon the trial before the Justice, the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, because there was only one defendant, and he resided in a County other than that of the Justice. This motion was overruled and judgment given against the defendant for the amount of the note sued on, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court, and His Honor affirmed the ruling of the Justice. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nMessrs. Wright Stedman, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. McNeil McNeil, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 99
}