{
  "id": 8659207,
  "name": "ARNOLD v. HARDY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arnold v. Hardy",
  "decision_date": "1902-10-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "114",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 N.C. 113"
    }
  ],
  "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": 118,
    "char_count": 1203,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.432,
    "sha256": "46ffcb7fd2e0806360f01222d23da345e5074c2c1b37b18c52e96c8295e7c853",
    "simhash": "1:c6612197db6c9a51",
    "word_count": 225
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:51.027382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARNOLD v. HARDY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OuetaM.\nFor the reasons given in the case of Arnold v. Dennis, at this, term of the Court, and also for the additional reason that it does not appear that F. H. Thomas, the devisee, in Item 8 of the will (a construction of which seems to' be the purpose of the appeal), died without issue, the most material part of the case, this case must go back for a new trial. It is said in the statement of the case that \u201cplaintiffs claim that he died without issue/\u2019 but surely that must be found as a fact before it can be expected that we should malee a decision in the matter. The case was made up by counsel.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OuetaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murchison & Johnson, for the plaintiffs.",
      "0. J. Spears, and T. M. Arpo, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARNOLD v. HARDY.\n(Filed October 7, 1902.)\nAPPEAL \u2014 Case on Appeal \u2014 Statement of Facts \u2014 New Trial.\nWhere a case on appeal does not contain a sufficient statement of facts to enable the supreme court to make a decision, it will be remanded for a new trial.\nAotioN by William Arnold and others against 0. Hardy and wife, heard by Judge W. 8. O\u2019B. Robinson and a jury, at November Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Habnett County. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed.\nMurchison & Johnson, for the plaintiffs.\n0. J. Spears, and T. M. Arpo, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 152
}