{
  "id": 8658263,
  "name": "NORRIS v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL & WATER CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Norris v. Lake Drummond Canal & Water Co.",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "183",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. 182"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273948
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/130/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N. C., 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2298,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20767349756684655
    },
    "sha256": "ff6edb34f2a28cb4889d457129e051df0baea0eb73b4b8628e2aa63d2e186c9a",
    "simhash": "1:eac5680c131f8c4a",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:22:40.266480+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NORRIS v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL & WATER CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Douglas, J.\nThis case is identical in principle with that of Williams v. Canal Co., 130 N. C., 146, and grows out of the same state of facts. In fact it is a mere supplement to that case, as therein the owners of the land recovered for the permanent damage to the land and their part of the crops destroyed; while in the case at bar the lessee has recovered for the damages resulting to the lease held and his share of the crops. This, his Honor seems to have adjusted on the trial, and the exception thereto was not insisted upon in the hearing before us.\nThe only exceptions apparently relied upon by the defendant are those discussed by us in Pinnix v. Canal Co., at this term, with which this case was argued.\nIn the case at bar, the plaintiff alleges in paragraph Y of the complaint \u201cThat the defendant is a corporation duly incorporated, as plaintiff is informed and believes.\u201d To this allegation the defendant answers in paragraph Y as follows: \u201cThat section Y of the complaint is untrue, but defendant is also incorporated under the laws of North Carolina.\u201d We presume the word \u201cuntrue\u201d is a misprint, and that the defendant intended to allege that it was incorporated under the laws both of Virginia and of North Carolina; but as it has pleaded neither statute of incorporation, we do not see how it can affect the case.\nUpon the principles decided in Mullen v. Canal Co., 130 N. C., 496, and Pinnix v. Canal Co., at this term, the judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Douglas, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. F. Aydlett, and Williams & Leigh, for the plaintiff.",
      "Pruden & Pruden and Shepherd & Shepherd, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORRIS v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL & WATER CO.\n(Filed March 17, 1903.)\nPLE ADIN GS\u2014 Corporations\u2014 Complaint \u2014 Answer.\nWhere plaintiff alleged*' that defendant was a corporation, duly in- . corporated, and defendant alleged that such allegation was untrue, and that the defendant was also incorporated under the laws of this State, hut failed to plead any statute of incorporation, its allegation was insufficient to raise the issue of its corporate capacity.\nActioN by G. W. Norris against the Lake Drummond Canal & Water Company, heard by Judge M. U. Justice and a jury, at December (Special) Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of CaMdeN County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nE. F. Aydlett, and Williams & Leigh, for the plaintiff.\nPruden & Pruden and Shepherd & Shepherd, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 232,
  "last_page_order": 233
}