{
  "id": 8661252,
  "name": "FLEMING v. GREENLEAF-JOHNSON LUMBER CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fleming v. Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1901-06-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "532",
  "last_page": "533",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 532"
    }
  ],
  "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": 161,
    "char_count": 1932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.344,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4147193523637865
    },
    "sha256": "545a7972793d72183a68b8509e7a2224f3b5644bb8d8d8f27a5839720011719d",
    "simhash": "1:d2490cfbae9a0595",
    "word_count": 323
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FLEMING v. GREENLEAF-JOHNSON LUMBER CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nUpon the evidence, the issues should have been submitted to the jury.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shinner & Whedbee, for the plaintiff.",
      "J. L. Fleming, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FLEMING v. GREENLEAF-JOHNSON LUMBER CO.\n(Filed June 7, 1901.)\nEVIDENCE- \u2014 Sufficiency\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Negligence\u2014Personal Injuries\u2014 Railroads \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nEvidence in this case on the cuesti\u00f3n of negligence should have been submitted to the jury.\nAction by Mahala Eleming, administratrix of Daniel Fleming, against the Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Oo., heard by Judge J. W. Bowman, at March Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Pitt County.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence showed that her intestate was killed by a log rolling from _ a logging train operated by defendant, and on which deceased was going to his work. Deceased was employed by bis brother-in-law in cutting logs at a distance of three to- four miles from the logging camp, and he and other employes were accustomed to go to and from their work on the train, -though they were not employed thereon. The brother-in-law of deceased testified tibat be employed the latter, but that be was paid by the company, who bad the right to discharge the men, and that they were really employed by the defendant company. The accident occurred while the train was going on a down-grade, and the train was not stopped thereafter, though deceased was riding in plain view of the engine. There were no brakes on the train, except on the engine; and the car on which deceased was riding did not have standards, though the logs were held in place by four-inch shoulders, but other cars on the triain had standards. All' of plaintiff\u2019s witnesses testified that they had not received notice not to> ride on the train, or that it was dangerous, but testified that they knew that it was dangerous to ride thereon, but preferred to take the chances rather than walk.\nErom a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appealed.\nShinner & Whedbee, for the plaintiff.\nJ. L. Fleming, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0532-01",
  "first_page_order": 568,
  "last_page_order": 569
}