{
  "id": 8698009,
  "name": "JOHN S. REESE & CO. v. JAMES F. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "John S. Reese & Co. v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1881-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "599",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 N.C. 597"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 N. C., 2",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276792
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/83/0002-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2798,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.367,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7483074260957182e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7081171527760884
    },
    "sha256": "80f45649e58c040c6e31268356cd90fd3cdd9aecbfe41669e559900355bfb780",
    "simhash": "1:df9019affb1a959b",
    "word_count": 487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:59:35.813846+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN S. REESE & CO. v. JAMES F. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThe case of Boddie v. Woodard, 83 N. C., 2, was very much like this. There, the entry was \u201c complaint filed, time to demur or answer.\u201d At the ensuing term the defendant\u2019s counsel moved to file an answer, which the court refused and gave judgment for the plaintiff. This court on the appeal of defendant held that while it would not undertake definitely to fix the limits of the extension in such cases, they cannot he allowed to reach the trial term, and as the motion to put in the answer at that term was addressed to the discretion of His Honor, its exercise could not be reviewed and controlled in this court.\nOurs is a somewhat stronger case than -that, for here, the complaint was filed three months before the trial term, and-the defendant\u2019s counsel was notified, at the time, of the' fact of the complaint being filed, and. was also informed-\u00a1that his client -was then in town. The defendant was guilty \u2022of laehes. There is no excuse for the delay. The allowing the answer, to be filed at the trial term was a pure matter of discretion, and is not reviewable in this court. .\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Strong, Monroe and Dortch, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. Galloway & Albritton, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN S. REESE & CO. v. JAMES F. JONES.\nFiling Answer \u2014 Discretion of Judge.\nThe refusal of a judge to allow an answer to be filed at the trial term is not reviewable; it is a matter addressed to his discretion.\n{Bodclie v. Woodard, S3 N. C., 2, eited -and approved.)\nCivil ActioN tried at Fall Term, 1880, of Greene Superior Court, before Gudger, J.\nThe summons was issued on the 27th of January, 1880, returnable to spring term, 1880, at which term an entry was made on th.e docket as follows: \u201c Time to file pleadings as <of spring term, 1880.\u201d About three months prior to fall term of same year, the trial term-., the plaintiffs filed' their-complaint duly verified, in which they declared upon two-writings obligatory under seal for the payment' of money\u2014 one dated April 1st, 18-79, for three hundred and fifty dollars, and the other dated May 1st, 18-79, for four hundred and fifty dollars, both- due on the first day of November following.-\nAt th-e time-of filing the complaint, the plaintiffs\u2019\u2019 counsel notified the defendant\u2019s counsel of the fact, and called! - his attention to the fact that his client, the defendant,, was in Snow Hill, the county town of Greene- county. On the fourth day of fall term, 1880, th-e case being called in regular order on the docket, the defendant offered bis answer and ashed leave to file the same, when on motion of plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, the court in the exercise of its discretion refused to allow the defendant to file it, and rendered judgment against him for the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, from which judgment the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Strong, Monroe and Dortch, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. Galloway & Albritton, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 613,
  "last_page_order": 615
}