{
  "id": 8649685,
  "name": "JAMES L. CARROLL and wife v. JOHN BARDEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carroll v. Barden",
  "decision_date": "1887-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.C. 191"
    }
  ],
  "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": "95 N. C., 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273530
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651435
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273530
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1553,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20757870439550724
    },
    "sha256": "5978a4bb07187be24004cbfa7c860872044b2325a868a2128d20244083881ab4",
    "simhash": "1:3dc841b83b99c6ac",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:12.215141+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES L. CARROLL and wife v. JOHN BARDEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MERRIMOS, J.\nWe have carefully examined the record of this appeal, and fail to find either in it, or the case settled upon appeal, any exception as assignment of error. There is nothing appearing, that in terms or by the remotest implication indicates the slightest dissatisfaction with the judgment appealed from, except simply that the appeal was-taken to this Court. It is settled by a multitude of decisions, that in such case the judgment must be affirmed.\nThe presumption is that the judgment is not erroneous. The party who alleges the contrary must show it, not by oral suggestion on the argument, but he must assign it in the record in such reasonable way as that this Court can see it. This is essential. The statute prescribes how this shall be done. Philips v. Pierce, 94 N. C., 514; Lytle v. Lytle, Ibid., 522; Pleasants v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 195. See also Clark\u2019s Code, p., where many earlier cases are collected. Judgment affirmed.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MERRIMOS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. H. E. Faison, A. W. Haywood and Kerr, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES L. CARROLL and wife v. JOHN BARDEN.\nAppeal.\nWhere neither the record nor the case on appeal shows any exception or assignment of error, the judgment will be affirmed.\n{Phipps v. Pierce, 94 N. 0.. 514; Lytle v. Lytle, Ibid., 523; Pleasants v. The Railroad, 95 N. C., 195; cited and approved).\nCivil action, heard on appeal from a justice of the peace, by Clark, Judge, at Fall Term, 1886, of Sampson Superior Court.\nThere was a judgment for the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed.\nNo counsel for the plaintiffs.\nMessrs. H. E. Faison, A. W. Haywood and Kerr, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}