{
  "id": 8653469,
  "name": "IREDELL WILLIAMS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. 512"
    }
  ],
  "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": 154,
    "char_count": 2476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.409,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5560024155241233e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6760979114998596
    },
    "sha256": "31821bf0cb7300829dfe4b9c3dd4889952f8ab95363f2cf64a7cf072f5318667",
    "simhash": "1:26ece1ea8011be9e",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:04.541275+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IREDELL WILLIAMS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe defendant employed the minor son of the plaintiff. The son 'told the defendant\u2019s representatives that his father consented to his working for himself, but in fact bis father did not know of the defendant\u2019s employing his son; and the latter was injured while in the defendant\u2019s service, but, it is admitted, without any negligence on the part of the defendant or of its servants. The plaintiff sues for loss of services after and in consequence of the injury. For the services the son had rendered, compensation belonged to the father; but, as the loss of further services was caused by an injury which was not caused by the fault of the defendant, it cannot be held liable for such loss.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Virgil E. Holcombe, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Messrs. Glenn & Manly, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IREDELL WILLIAMS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\nParent and Child\u25a0 \u2014 -Injury to Child \u2014 Action by Parent for Lons of Services.\nWhere a minor son of plaintiff was employed by defendant without the knowledge or consent of the fnt-lier and was injured while so employed, but the injury was not due to the employer\u2019s negligence; Jldd, that tin re can be no recovery by the father for loss of services, after and in consequence of the injury.\nCivil action tried at Fall Term, 1897, of Surry Superior Court before Starbuclc, J., and a jury.\nThe following are the agreed facts: \u201cThat one W. W. Rister, agent of the defendant, employed John Williams, the son of plaintiff; that John Williams was at that time 39 years old; that he so'told Rister at the time of the employment, also at the same time told Rister that his father consented to his working for himself; that the father did not know of the employment of John Williams by the defendant; that John Williams was afterwards injured while in the employment of defendant, and while working on a bridge on defendant\u2019s road, but without- any negligence on the part of defendant or its servants at the time of this injury. The claim of plaintiff is for damages for loss of services after and in consequence of the injury on the bridge. If the Court is of opinion on these facts that plaintiff is entitled to recover, it is agreed that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff' for $40; otherwise, that the action be dismissed.\u201d\nThe Court, being of the opinion that, on the facts agreed, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, ordered and adjudged that plaintiff take nothing, and defendant go without day, etc. Plaintiff appealed.\nMr. Virgil E. Holcombe, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMessrs. Glenn & Manly, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 542,
  "last_page_order": 543
}