{
  "id": 8650060,
  "name": "L. H. CLEMENT and E. L. GAITHER, Adm'rs of J. M. Clement, v. COLEMAN FOSTER and SAMUEL FOSTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clement v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1888-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 N.C. 255"
    }
  ],
  "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": "94 N. C., 787",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652051
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C, 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8691075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683702
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682343
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688929
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5920,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.879708521896669e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7274095902888547
    },
    "sha256": "215a37e4b7a9590a71aa696545ee4199c784369b3d71ec5721ace26beb5f8f33",
    "simhash": "1:213ee355bea78e0a",
    "word_count": 1033
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:19:59.259917+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. H. CLEMENT and E. L. GAITHER, Adm\u2019rs of J. M. Clement, v. COLEMAN FOSTER and SAMUEL FOSTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.,\n(after stating the case). The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against Coleman Foster, and there was error in refusing it.\nThe motion for judgment against Samuel Foster was predicated upon the insufficiency of his answer and was in the nature of a demurrer thereto. Being refused, the plaintiffs\u2019 exception should have been noted and the action tried upon the issues raised by the complaint and answer, as it may have resulted that after the trial, no appeal would have been necessary. In this respect the appeal was premature, and, as no substantial right could have been lost to the plaintiff by the delay, upon the refusal of motion, the trial should have been proceeded with to a final judgment upon all the issues involved, and thus rendering only one appeal necessary.\nSince the doubt expressed in The Commissioners of Wake v. Magnin, 78 N. C., 181, whether an appeal could be entertained by this Court under a proper construction of \u00a7 548 of The Code, (C. C. P., \u00a7 299,) except from a judgment which determined the action or affected some substantial right, it has been repeatedly held that appeals will not be entertained from orders or judgments disposing of fragmentary parts of the action, but that exceptions might be taken to such orders or judgments and reserved to be passed upon, if necessary,, after \u201c trial upon all the issues raised by the pleadings according to the regular practice of the Court; and if the Court should have erred in its judgment or any of its rulings, then to have brought up the whole case by appeal, that its decisions upon questions of law, involved and controverted, might be finally adjudicated.\u201d Hines v. Hines, 84 N. C., 122; Commissioners v. Satchwell, 88 N. C., 1; Grant v. Reese, 90 N. C., 3; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. C, 301; Emery v. Hardee, 94 N. C., 787; and many similar cases.\nThe appeal must be dismissed and the cause proceeded with below as if no appeal had been attempted. To that end let this be certified.\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. B. Batchelor, for the plaintiffs.",
      "Mr. J. A. Williamson, filed a brief for the defendants"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. H. CLEMENT and E. L. GAITHER, Adm\u2019rs of J. M. Clement, v. COLEMAN FOSTER and SAMUEL FOSTER.\nAppeal \u2014 Interlocutory- Orders and Judgments.\n1. Appeals will not be entertained from interlocutory orders or judgments unless they determine the action or affect some substantial right. Exceptions to such orders or judgments should be made on the record and reserved to be passed upon, if necessary, after a trial upon all the issues raised, to the end that all the questions which it is desired may be reviewed shall be adjudicated upon one appeal.\nCivil ACTION tried before Gilmer, J.,. at Fall Term, 1887, of the Superior Court of Davie County.\nThe plaintiffs alleged that on the 6th day of July, 1882, the defendants executed to J. M. Clements a bond for the payment of the sum of $489.50, of which the following is a copy:\n\u201c$489.50.\nOne day after date we or either of us, as joint principals, promise to pay J. M. Clement four hundred and eighty-nine dollars and fifty cents, with interest from date at eight per cent, peLannum, interest payable annually on the 6th day of July of each year. Witness ou-r hands and seals, this 6th July, 1882.\n(Signed) COLEMAN FOSTER, [Seal.]\nSAMUEL FOSTER, [Seal]\u201d\nThat subsequently J. M. Clement died intestate, and the plaintiffs were duly appointed and qualified as his administrators, and that no part of said bond has been paid. Wherefore plaintiffs demand judgment, &e.\nThe defendant Samuel Foster filed the following answer, in substance (Coleman Foster filed no answer):\nThat the statements contained in the complaint are untrue, except in so far as the samo'are admitted, as follows: That on or about the 6th of July, 1882, this defendant met Coleman Foster in Mocksville, who requested this defendant to sign a note to J. M. Clement as surety for him for about the sum mentioned in the note sued upon, and this defendant being the brother of Coleman Foster, and willing to do him the favor, agreed with him to sign said note as his surety, and accordingly went to the office of said J. M. Clement, and together with said Coleman signed his name to a note which defendant now supposes to be the note sued upon.\nThat the note was not read by defendant, nor read in his hearing, and this defendant avers that he signed the note as surety for his brother, and never heard the words \u201cjoint principal \u201d used in connection th\u00e9rewith until the complaint was read over to him, and he denies that he ever contracted with plaintiff\u2019s intestate as a joint principal with said Coleman Foster, as alleged in complaint, except in so far as the same may be implied by law by defendant\u2019s said act of going with Coleman Foster and signing the note as above set forth.\nThat said note was given, as this defendant is informed, for and on account of money borrowed by the said Coleman Foster from the said J. M. Clement, and this defendant was never requested by Clement or any other person to assume the relation of a joint principal, but, upon the contrary, said Clement well knew at the time of said signing that there was no reason for, and in point of fact, this defendant did not- knowingly assume the relation of joint principal, but signed the same as surety aforesaid.\nThis defendant further says, that as to him the plaintiff\u2019s action is barred by the statute of limitations, wherefore he demands judgment, &c.\nPlaintiffs moved for judgment by default against Coleman Foster (who filed no answer), and also moved for judgment upon the complaint and answer against Samuel Foster upon the ground that he could not be heard to contradict the note under seal by parol testimony, and to show that he was only surety when he signed the note as joint principal and, as plaintiffs contend, was in fact a joint principal. The motion of plaintiff was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nMr. J. B. Batchelor, for the plaintiffs.\nMr. J. A. Williamson, filed a brief for the defendants"
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 286
}