{
  "id": 11277354,
  "name": "BANK OF STATESVILLE v. W. G. BOGLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bank of Statesville v. Bogle",
  "decision_date": "1881-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.C. 203"
    }
  ],
  "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": "64 N. C., 706",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683469
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0706-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.422,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1856734610669054e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7731912169396749
    },
    "sha256": "0d418c47f9c9836d421064a8e615c74ff76737da97be5e705779ce2aebf926da",
    "simhash": "1:ba31863fc838c6b8",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:18.719028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BANK OF STATESVILLE v. W. G. BOGLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rufetn, J.\nThe stress of the-argument in this court was \u00dcaid upon the sufficiency of -the answer, in setting up the \u25a0defence of the statute of limitations \u2014 the plaintiff contending that as pleaded without any statement of facts to support it, it was but a mere announcement of a conclusion of law. We do not feel at liberty, however, to go into that \u25a0question, as. the demurrer itself is so defective as to require that it should be disregarded:\nA general demurrer that the-complaint .(or answer) does \u2022not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action \u00a1(or defence) should be overruled,' or rather, disregarded.\u201d Love v. Commissioners of Chatham, 64 N. C., 706.\nHowever much the correctness of the decision of the court in that case may have been questioned at the time, it has stood too long, and been to often approved, to admit of it at this late day-\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rufetn, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. J. M. Clement and D. M. Furckes, for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BANK OF STATESVILLE v. W. G. BOGLE.\nPleading \u2014 Demurrer-\nA general demurrer that the complaint (or answer! does not set forths facts- sufficient to constitute a- cause of action (pr defence), was properly overruled.\niLove Y-Oom?r9, 61N. 0., 7.06, eitedi and approved.)\nCivil Action-,, tried at Fall Term,, 1881,. of Ired-ell Superior Court, before Seymour, J..\nThe summons in this action issued on the- 21st day of May, 1879. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that the-defendant was in its employment, as a clerk, from the 1st off June,, 1871\u201eto. the 1st of June,, 1876,. during which time he. was permitted to draw money from the bank and charge himself with the same-.; and that in. this way, and within those periods, he drew and charged himself with the sum \u25a0of $336.55, -which he has failed to pay.\nIn his answer the defendant admits the allegations of the \u2022complaint, but says, \u25a0\u201c that 'he pleads the statute of limitations in bar of a -recovery in the-action.\u201d\nTo this answer the plaintiff demurs because, \u201c there are not sufficient 'facts set forth in said answer to constitute .a \u2022defence to plaintiff\u2019s complaint.\u201d\nOn the trial of the issue of law thus raised upon the pleadings, the court overruled the demurrer and the plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs. J. M. Clement and D. M. Furckes, for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}