{
  "id": 8662265,
  "name": "STATE ex rel. M. L. MOTT v. E. A. GRIFFITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Mott v. Griffith",
  "decision_date": "1900-06-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "775",
  "last_page": "775",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 N.C. 775"
    }
  ],
  "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": 105,
    "char_count": 1156,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.406,
    "sha256": "c29273e2c113d95bd14f57995a22f7ffdd78c4d209c2c14c612489ed90270a70",
    "simhash": "1:6083b60ac399b75c",
    "word_count": 199
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:28.883277+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE ex rel. M. L. MOTT v. E. A. GRIFFITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Furches, J.\nFrom the facts agreed in this case it appears to us that the same questions of la<w are presented for our determination that were presented in the case of White v. Murray, at this term, and this case is controlled by the opinion in that case. The judgment of the court below that the plaintiff could not recover must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Furches, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Holton & Alexander, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Olenn & Manly, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE ex rel. M. L. MOTT v. E. A. GRIFFITH.\n(Decided June 5, 1900.)\nQuo Warranto \u2014 Solicitor of the Superior Gourt of Forsyth County\u25a0 \u2014 Solicitor of Western District Criminal Court for Forsyth County.\nThe decision of this case is controlled by the case of White v. Murray, at present term, the questions of law being the same.\nCivil ActioN in the nature o\u00ed quo warranto, to try the title of defendant to be Solicitor of Criminal Court of Eor-syth County, heard upon, agreed facts before Sha/w, J., at November Term, 1899, of Eoesyth Superior Court.\nHis Honor, upon consideration of facts agreed and submitted to him rendered judgment in favor of defendant E. A. Griffith, and the relator, M. L. Mott, excepted and appealed.\nMessrs. Holton & Alexander, for appellant.\nMessrs. Olenn & Manly, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0775-01",
  "first_page_order": 815,
  "last_page_order": 815
}