{
  "id": 8664445,
  "name": "Burch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1902-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "830",
  "last_page": "830",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 N.C. 830"
    }
  ],
  "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": 59,
    "char_count": 458,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "sha256": "2c1a6dce0b724ef30bdb98b4a0df6904cecd57074d4a02f22e707c218be1e369",
    "simhash": "1:6395651ff60ef436",
    "word_count": 80
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:51.027382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Burch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "from Chowan;\nFurches, C. J.\nThe facts in this case are substantially the same as those in Monds v. Elizabeth City Co., at this term. The two cases were argued together and it was agreed by counsel that a decision in one case would decide the other. Therefore for the reasons given in Mond\u2019s case, the judgment below in this case is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Furches, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond, for plaintiff; Pruden & Fruden, Shepherd & Shepherd, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Burch v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.,\nW. M. Bond, for plaintiff; Pruden & Fruden, Shepherd & Shepherd, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0830-08",
  "first_page_order": 868,
  "last_page_order": 868
}