{
  "id": 8652360,
  "name": "J. M. HODGES v. BARBARA HILL et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodges v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1890-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 N.C. 130"
    }
  ],
  "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., 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273059
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274162
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1291,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.430481194967995e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8019712732286709
    },
    "sha256": "4ddc5c61c541edb5eefdfd3e312c32dc391babd4515eaa437527d66dbebfca30",
    "simhash": "1:92e2933a576515b4",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:46.302543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. HODGES v. BARBARA HILL et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe only question' presented is whether a Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of an action against a married woman'to recover a debt contracted prior-, to her marriage. This is not an open question. It has -been held that he has. Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346. The Code, \u00a71823, expressly provides that the liability\u2019of & feme sole \u201cshall not be altered or impaired\u201d by her marriage. Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C., 300, which holds that a Justice of the Peace has not jurisdiction of an action against a married woman, applies only to liabilities incurred by her while a feme covert, and not even to them in cases where she is a free trader, or the proceeding is to enforce a laborer\u2019s lien. The Code, \u00a7\u00a71790, 1828, 1831 and 1832; Smaw v. Cohen, 95 N. C., 85.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. N. J. Rouse, for the plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. IP. E. Shaw and Clement Manly, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. HODGES v. BARBARA HILL et al.\nJustice of the Peace \u2014 Jurisdiction\u2014Married Woman.\nA Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of an action against a married woman to recover a debt contracted prior to her marriage.\nThis was a civil action, begun before a Justice of the Peace, and tried before Graves, J., at February Term, 1890, of Lenoir Superior Court.\nFrom judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appealed.\nMr. N. J. Rouse, for the plaintiff.\nMessrs. IP. E. Shaw and Clement Manly, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 156,
  "last_page_order": 157
}