{
  "id": 8651646,
  "name": "JAMES B. JONES v. SAMUEL JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1894-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. 209"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 1003,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4395899143154678
    },
    "sha256": "8eac4316426093ecd163c1ff90c314edcb611afb7a5c11ce0b36a9787a1c2dcd",
    "simhash": "1:4d3b30ca66223263",
    "word_count": 172
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES B. JONES v. SAMUEL JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe fund here in dispute stands in the place of certain crops which the plaintiff insists belonged to him because he was the landlord of the defendant by whom they were raised. There being a serious controversy as to the true ownership of these crops, and therefore of this fund, it is proper to have it preserved till the rights of the contestants can be determined; We see no error in the order appealed from. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Swift Galloway and J. B. Batchelor, for plaintiff.",
      "George M. Lindsay, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES B. JONES v. SAMUEL JONES.\nInjunction \u2014 Controversy as to Oivnership of a Fund \u2014 Preservation of the Fund During Suit.\nWhere there is a serious controversy as to the ownership of a fund, it is proper to preserve it by a restraining order until the rights of the contestants can be determined.\nThis was a motion to continue a restraining order until the hearing, heard before Battle, I, at Spring Term, 1894, of Greene Superior Court. The defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Swift Galloway and J. B. Batchelor, for plaintiff.\nGeorge M. Lindsay, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 229
}