{
  "id": 11275054,
  "name": "MARSHALL PARKS et al. v. AMERICA C. DAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parks v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "482",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 481"
    }
  ],
  "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": 170,
    "char_count": 2058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37938582519675856
    },
    "sha256": "0a05788469dc2d398da6b64b74abcfc111202e32ade2060863155a8d61434057",
    "simhash": "1:3e379062e83d8060",
    "word_count": 349
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARSHALL PARKS et al. v. AMERICA C. DAVIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerrimoN, J.\nThis procedure was not regular, but sufficient, in the absence of objection, to serve the-purposes of the action. Regularly, the Court should have heard the-evidence and given its decision in writing, which should have contained a statement of the facts found and the conclusions of law \u2014 the facts and conclusions of law stated separately \u2014 and judgment upon this decision should have been entered accordingly, as were the findings. The Code, \u00a7417.\nBut no exception was taken to the findings of fact or law or the judgment, as specially provided and allowed in such cases by the statute (The Code, \u00a7418), or at all, and there is no assignment of error in terms or by reasonable implication, from anything that appears in the record.\nThe judgment must therefore be affirmed. To the end that further proceedings may be had in the action according to law, let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerrimoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. C. H. Armfield and W. N. Scales, for the plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. J. W. Hinsdale, R. H. Battle and G. N. Eollc, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARSHALL PARKS et al. v. AMERICA C. DAVIS.\nAppeal \u2014 Assignment of Error \u2014 Trial by the Court.\n1. When a trial by jury is waived, the Court should find the facts and\nstate its conclusions separately, in writing, and then enter judgment in accordance therewith.\n2. But where the Court simply responded formally to the issues and\ndirected judgment, to which no exception was taken, and no assignment of error was made, the judgment will be affirmed.\nCivil action, tried at Spring Term, 1887, of Asiie Superior Court, before MacRae, Judge.\nThe parties agreed \u201c by oral consent, entered on the minutes\u201d of the Court, as allowed by the statute (The Code, \u00a7416, par. 3), to waive a trial by jury.\nThereupon three issues were settled, and the Court, having heard and considered the evidence, responded formally to each, without stating a summary of the facts found or stating them in detail, and upon its findings gave judgment directing an account to be taken, &c., from which the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. C. H. Armfield and W. N. Scales, for the plaintiffs.\nMessrs. J. W. Hinsdale, R. H. Battle and G. N. Eollc, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 513,
  "last_page_order": 514
}