{
  "id": 8658794,
  "name": "BANK v. BURLINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bank v. Burlington",
  "decision_date": "1899-03-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. 251"
    }
  ],
  "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": "113 N. C., 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652694
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652874
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0255-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 93,
    "char_count": 875,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.309311792351655e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2714015373097042
    },
    "sha256": "8a1c7e0404cd9ff0b06b8ee81cac10edc891a9530e68a5ec15fe633525e60d29",
    "simhash": "1:7cfcfb00348dcf97",
    "word_count": 146
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:58.946028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BANK v. BURLINGTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn this case Justice ClaeK did not sit, and the Court is evenly divided. According to the settled practice of appellate Courts in such cases, tbe judgment below stands, not as a precedent, but as tbe decision in this case. Puryear v. Lynch, 121 N. C., 255; Durham v. Railroad, 113 N. C., 240, and cases there cited.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum & Taylor, 0. B. McLean and W. H. Carroll, for appellant.",
      "Winston & Fuller, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BANK v. BURLINGTON.\n(Decided March 21, 1899).\nPractice \u2014 Court Evenly Divided.\nWhere the appellate Court is evenly divided, the settled practice in such cases is, that the judgment helow stands, not as a precedent, hut as a decision in the case.\nCivil ActioN, tried before Timberlake, J., upon report of referee and exceptions thereto, at September Term, 1898, of AlakaNCe Superior Court. Judgment in favor of plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nBynum & Taylor, 0. B. McLean and W. H. Carroll, for appellant.\nWinston & Fuller, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 279,
  "last_page_order": 280
}