{
  "id": 11273278,
  "name": "J. H. DANIEL v. JESSE ROGERS and wife",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daniel v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1886-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "134",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. 134"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698603
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0649-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.458523723746264e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6568021919424646
    },
    "sha256": "de39f6b745f367a2a64eb325d0f80e8c45711b9063ac15bc4eec77fc6c9dbb73",
    "simhash": "1:b9240a319dd88710",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:31.449463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. DANIEL v. JESSE ROGERS and wife."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nThe transcript in this appeal, consists only of the case agreed, the judgment of the Court thereon, and the undertaking on appeal. It is not a controversy \u201csubmitted without action\u201d under \u00a7507 of The Code, nor can the record he upheld as such, for want of compliance with its requirements. There is no process, or waiver of process, apparent, and there is no pleading, by which we can see that it was properly constituted in the Court from which the appeal comes, nor except from the agreed statement of facts, what are the respective contentions of the parties. The case is the same as that of Rowland v. Mitchell, 90 N. C., 649, and must be disposed of in the same way, by remanding it to the Court below; and it is so ordered. Had these substantial imperfections in the record been called to our attention before argument upon the merits, the argument would have been unnecessary. Remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John D. Bellamy, for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. DANIEL v. JESSE ROGERS and wife.\nTranscript on Appeal.\nWhere the transcript of the record upon appeal does not show any process, or pleading, but only contains a statement of the facts agreed upon, a judgment, and an undertaking on appeal, the case will be remanded, in order that the record may be perfected.\n{Rowland v. Mitchell, 90 N. 0., 649, cited and approved).\nCivil action, tried before Clark, Judge, at September Term, 1886, of the Superior Court of New Hanover County.\nFor the reasons set out in the opinion, the ease was remanded.\nMr. John D. Bellamy, for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 160,
  "last_page_order": 160
}