{
  "id": 8698581,
  "name": "THOMAS G. LYTLE v. JOHN LYTLE and other",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lytle v. Lytle",
  "decision_date": "1884-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "647",
  "last_page": "648",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.C. 647"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 N. C., 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682984
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1411,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.412121717113371e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8781062139144019
    },
    "sha256": "f7cd583670d1e06678215041c895c2f25add9e6739814837dc27dacf89b607c3",
    "simhash": "1:4f00b000e5e07f54",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:38.032493+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS G. LYTLE v. JOHN LYTLE and other."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerrijjoN, J.\nThe appellee moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the undertaking upon appeal had not been justified as required by the statute.\nIt does not appear in the record, or otherwise, that the undertaking, or a deposit of money with the clerk, ordered by the court, was 'waived by a \u201cwritten consent on the part of the respondent,\u201d*the plaintiff. An affidavit of the surety accompanies the undertaking upon appeal, but it is fatally defective, in that it does not state that'the affiant \u201cis worth double the amount specified therein.\u201d The statute is peremptory in requiring this fact to be stated. Harshaw v. McDowell, 89 N. C., 181; Morphew v. Tatem, Ib., 183; Hemphill v. Blackwelder, decided at this term, ante, 14.\nIt is manifest that the appellee is entitled to have his motion allowed. It is so ordered.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerrijjoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W W. Flemming, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Sinclair & Sinclair and J. B. Batchelor, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS G. LYTLE v. JOHN LYTLE and other.\nAppeal \u2014 Justification of Bond.\n1. An appeal will be dismissed on motion if the appeal bond is noi unless the record shows that the npp dlec has waived th \u2018 s un.* in \u00ab> A i ij;.\n2. An affidavit of \u00a11 surety to stick bond is fatally defective if it does not state that the affiant is worth double the amount specified in the bond.\nMOTION by plaintiff to dismiss an appeal heard at February Term, 1884, of The Supreme Court.\nMr. W W. Flemming, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Sinclair & Sinclair and J. B. Batchelor, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0647-01",
  "first_page_order": 663,
  "last_page_order": 664
}