{
  "id": 11278186,
  "name": "NANCY LONG v. DANIEL LONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Long v. Long",
  "decision_date": "1881-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "415",
  "last_page": "417",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.C. 415"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Dev., 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dev., 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276918
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/15/0492-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 3663,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.723931372823431e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8304223528089861
    },
    "sha256": "30f9df3ce12f9064b687435597078f5743730d1999765a25c46f160862117ed6",
    "simhash": "1:1f39df3032fcff65",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:18.719028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NANCY LONG v. DANIEL LONG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "RuRKiN, J.\nTreating the plaintiff\u2019s motion as the clerk and the court both seem to \u25a0 have done, as a motion for a, \u2022judgment nunc pro time, it was correctly allowed. \u201c The court will in general permit a record to be amended and a> judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc when it has been delayed by the act of the court or the clerk.\u201d Bright v. Sugg, 4 Dev., 492. And we know of no statute that limits the power of the court, or its duty to do this, for a duty it becomes whenever necessary to prevent injustice to an innocent party.\nOur only doubt has been with reference to the interest allowed the plaintiff on her judgment, but as the statute (Rev. Code, ch. 31, \u00a7 90) declares that every judgment or decree, except for costs, rendered or adjudged in any hind of action, shall bear.interest till paid, we do not see why this one should be made an exception.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "RuRKiN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jlessrs. Watson & Glenn, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Gray & Stamps, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NANCY LONG v. DANIEL LONG.\nJudgment n-une'pro tune \u2014 Statute of Limitations \u2014 Amendment\u2014 Widow\u2019s Wear\u2019s- Support- \u2014 Interest.\nIt is competent to-the court to allow judgment nunc pro tunc to be: entered in. favor of a- widow against the personal representative of her deceased husband, for an amount covering the deficiency of personal 'estate, so as to make up the total sum allowed as her year's support; and there is' no statute limiting the power of the court in thus amending its record. The widow is also entitled to interest on such judgment. \u25a0\n(Bright v. Sugg, 4 Dev., 402, cited and approved.)\nMotion for judgment nunc pro tunc, heard at Fall Term, 1881, of Yadkin Superior Court, before Eure, J.\n.. The plaintiff is the widow of Isaac Long, who died in 1873, and the defendant is his administrator. In October, 1873, the plaintiff made due application to the defendant for an assignment of a year\u2019s support for herself and family. The defendant immediately applied to a justice of the peace, who-together with two persons qualified according to law, proceeded to ascertain the number of persons constituting the family of the plaintiff, and make the allotment required. They ascertained her family to consist of six children under fifteen years of age, and assessed her allowance at nine hundred dollars.\nThe personal property assigned to her, they valued at $651.20, thus leaving a deficit to be paid her in money of $248.80. The justice, as required by law, filed a list of the articles assigned to her, stating the value of each and the deficiency to be paid the plaintiff, with the clerk of the superior court, who received and filed the same, but omitted to enter judgment against the defendant for said deficiency. The defendant has made payments to the plaintiff on account of said allotment, the last in 1880.\nFinding that no judgment had been entered in her favor, the plaintiff after giving the defendant notice, on the 7th day of July, 1881, moved the court to enter judgment against the defendant for the amount due her according to the assessment of the commissioners, subject to credits for the amounts that had been paid her thereon, making an affidavit that there was a balance still due to her on account of the same. The defendant filed.an affidavit also, in which he substantially admits the facts as above stated, but says he is advised that the plaintiff\u2019s claim against him is barred by the statute of limitations, and he pleads the same.\nThe clerk of the superior court allowed theplain tiff\u2019s motion and gave judgment in her behalf, from which the defendant appealed to the superior court, and the judgment of that c.ourt being also against him, he appealed to this court.\nJlessrs. Watson & Glenn, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Gray & Stamps, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0415-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 429
}