{
  "id": 11274140,
  "name": "JOSEPH MAPHIS v. T. H. PEGRAM et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maphis v. Pegram",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "505",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 505"
    }
  ],
  "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": "102 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650137
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/102/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/102/0540-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 100,
    "char_count": 974,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23915815169146928
    },
    "sha256": "196f63c15af3b19ec4f37ba6550d95c1f3be88492d4d7b188a740b7ac74fac4b",
    "simhash": "1:141fdd5f76277075",
    "word_count": 175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH MAPHIS v. T. H. PEGRAM et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerbjmoN, C. J.:\nThis case brings in question a second time the validity of the probate of the deed held to be sufficient in Buggy Co. v. Pegram, 102 N. C., 540. That case is authority directly in point, and must govern the present one. Notwithstanding the earnest and elaborate argument of the appellant\u2019s counsel, we approve it as correctly decided, and do not feel called upon to' add a word to what is there said.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerbjmoN, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. L. Patterson, for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH MAPHIS v. T. H. PEGRAM et al.\nProbate of Deed \u2014 Registration.\nThe case .of Buggy Co. v. Pegram, 102 N. C., 540, is decisive of this case, and this Court will not consider the questions involved therein a second time.\nThis was a civil action, tried at October Term, 1890, of FORSYTH Superior Court, before McCorkle, J., upon the complaint and answer.\nThe material facts in this case are the same as in Buggy Co. v. Pegram, 102 N. C., 540, and the same questions are involved.\nMr. J. L. Patterson, for plaintiff.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 541,
  "last_page_order": 541
}