{
  "id": 8683236,
  "name": "BANK OF NEW HANOVER v. BLOSSOM & EVANS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bank of New Hanover v. Blossom",
  "decision_date": "1883-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. 341"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3433,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.945995428916779e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42112088388164715
    },
    "sha256": "e786af49fe34bef75e6ac1fe0aa16f624f9bb03890a05335365dd18ec2596885",
    "simhash": "1:942964e5b85daff5",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:46.148190+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BANK OF NEW HANOVER v. BLOSSOM & EVANS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, J.\nThe record in this action comes before us in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory shape. We have given it much consideration, and are unable to decide the questions sought to be presented by the grounds of error assigned, until the material facts connected with the motion to discharge the attachment and underlying the amendments complained of, shall be admitted or found by the court.\nThere is set out in the record an affidavit signed by Isaac Bates, that purports to have been filed on the day the warrant of attachment issued, but it likewise appears that there was a contention as to whether or not an affidavit was filed in fact; and if at all, whether or not it ivas filed at or before the granting of the warrant of attachment. The court failed to find, as itought to have done, how the fact was.\nIt is suggested in the record, that an order of publication of the summons as to the non-resident defendant (Blossom) was granted on the 16th day of March, next after the time the summons issued, and such order appears; but it does not appear that any affidavit, at all events any sufficient affidavit, to authorize such order was filed; nor does it appear that there was any order of publication of notice of the attachment at any time; nor does the order of publication, entered in pursuance of the order of the court extending the time of publication, embrace any notice of the attachment; nor does it appear that any publication of the summons or notice thereof, or notice of the attachment was made at any time.\nThis court cannot find the facts: it has no authority to do so. In such a case, it is the duty of the superior court to find the facts upon which its orders and judgments rest, and to set them forth in the record. This is necessary to the orderly course of procedure. The record is not regular or complete without such findings, and upon appeal to this court, it is indispensable. How it may turn out in this case, we do not venture to say; but it sometimes happens that important rights are impaired or lost by neglect or inadvertence in setting forth the essential parts of the record.\nAll this court can do, and what it must do in this case, with a view to justice, is to remand it, to the end that the facts may be found by the court; and it may make such orders and amendments as it may deem just and proper, and put the case in such shape as that, if need be, errors may be corrected upon appeal. This court has power to remand for such a purpose, and we find it necessary to do so in this case. The Code, \u00a7965. This section enlarges the powers conferred by Revised Code, ch. 33, \u00a717, so as to dispense with, distinctions between law and equity, and to embrace all cases, whatever their nature.\nLet the case be remanded and this opinion certified to the superior court according to law.\nPer CurxaM. Remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. C. M. Sledman and D. J. Devane, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. Geo. Davis, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BANK OF NEW HANOVER v. BLOSSOM & EVANS.\nPractice \u2014 Remanding Causes.\nWhere the transcript of the record fails to set forth facts necessary for the determination of the ease on appeal, it will he remanded to the end that the same may be supplied or found by the court below, as the nature of the cause may require. The Code, $965.\nMOTION to vacate an order of attachment heard at J une Term, 1883, of New Hanover Superior Court, before McKoy, J.\nThe motion was denied and the defendants appealed.\nMessrs. C. M. Sledman and D. J. Devane, for plaintiff.\nMr. Geo. Davis, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 357,
  "last_page_order": 358
}