{
  "id": 11273041,
  "name": "HARPER WILLIAMS v. S. ALBERTSON, Adm'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Albertson",
  "decision_date": "1892-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "249",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 N.C. 249"
    }
  ],
  "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": 116,
    "char_count": 1007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "91c7aa6441af1b959f768e0616214399b3f6c5d9a63994ced85e7e9233476878",
    "simhash": "1:a1457ff1ed7f22c9",
    "word_count": 178
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:37.916120+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HARPER WILLIAMS v. S. ALBERTSON, Adm\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nWe have examined with much care the record in this case, and the points presented and argued by counsel have been fully considered. As the principles involved have been often decided by this, Court, and no useful purpose can be served by an opinion applying them to the particular facts of this case, it is sufficient to say that we think there was no error in the ruling of the Court below, and that the judgment shoujd be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr: W. R. Allen, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. H. L. Stevens, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARPER WILLIAMS v. S. ALBERTSON, Adm\u2019r.\nThis was a motion by the defendant, the heirs at law and the administrators of Stephen M. Houston to set aside an award, the judgment confirming th'e same, the sale and report thereof in accordance with said judgment, all of which proceedings were had in this action, heard at ITebruary Term, 1891, of Duplin Superior Court, Mclver, J., presiding.\nThe facts were found by the Court, and thereupon it refused to grant the motion, and defendants appealed.\nMr: W. R. Allen, for plaintiff.\nMr. H. L. Stevens, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0249-01",
  "first_page_order": 277,
  "last_page_order": 277
}