{
  "id": 8653176,
  "name": "JAMES W. THOMPSON et al. v. JAMES NATIONS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Nations",
  "decision_date": "1893-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 N.C. 348"
    }
  ],
  "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": 90,
    "char_count": 947,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "7537743eb323b010c8da0a378c686fc06637b500d90e00221624a09ab2cf4fbd",
    "simhash": "1:fee10799604cdaba",
    "word_count": 161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:11.999452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES W. THOMPSON et al. v. JAMES NATIONS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe former ruling of this Court left the issue undetermined, and it is therefore open for a new trial. The motion of the defendants for judgment was properly declined.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. A. E. Holton, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. Glenn & Manly, for defendants (appellants)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES W. THOMPSON et al. v. JAMES NATIONS et al.\nPractice \u2014 Premature Motion for Judgment.\nWhere, by a former ruling of this Court, an. issue was left undetermined, and the cause stood for a new trial below, a motion for judgment was properly declined.\nThe opinion of this Court in the appeal heard at February Term, 1893 (112 N. C., p. 508), having been certified to the Court below, the defendants, at Fall Term, 1893, of .Surry Superior Court, before Winston, J., moved for judgment, which was refused, his Honor being of the opinion that the certificate of the Supreme Court was not a final judgment, but only an order for a new trial. Defendants thereupon appealed.\nMr. A. E. Holton, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. Glenn & Manly, for defendants (appellants)."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}