{
  "id": 12131390,
  "name": "HUNT versus M'KINLAY & WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hunt v. M'Kinlay",
  "decision_date": "1797-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "74",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 73"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 102,
    "char_count": 1154,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "sha256": "03e3292036c89dd5137ef73e8c9b20b89d102687c19adcebc5fad3690f88a18c",
    "simhash": "1:52dc7d8aa02b0701",
    "word_count": 203
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HUNT versus M\u2019KINLAY & WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The Court,\nWilliam, J. and M\u2019Coy, J.\nseemed averse to granting the motion.\nCuria advisare vult.\nOn the next day they directed the bill and answer to be read; but, as they deemed the equity of the bill not sworn away in the answer, the defendants took nothing by their motion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "William, J. and M\u2019Coy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Taylor and Badger for the defendants,",
      "Martin for the complainant, did not oppose the motion."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Newbern,\nMarch Term, 2797\nIn Equity.\nHUNT versus M\u2019KINLAY & WILLIAMS.\nTHE Complainant, since the beginning of this term, had obtained an injunction again; the defendants, on a bill returnable to September court: and on the first of the Equity days,\nTaylor and Badger for the defendants,\nread an affidavit of the Deputy-Sheriff, stating that he had informed the complainant, forty days before the term, that he had the execution in his hands, requesting him to point out property, on which it might be levied. They said the complainant might have obtained an injunction on a bill returnable to this term, by going to one of the Judges, as soon as he knew the execution was out that his waiting \u2019till the beginning of the term, shewed an inclination to put off the defendant, &c. and moved the bill and answer might be read.\nMartin for the complainant, did not oppose the motion."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-02",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 82
}