{
  "id": 11269802,
  "name": "W. T. HUDNELL et al. v. L. G. DANIELS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hudnell v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1908-09-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "308",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "148 N.C. 308"
    }
  ],
  "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": 74,
    "char_count": 600,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "sha256": "3ca55eb12fab3250e9a8c653401afdf68cfef9ad788ff34d196539d4ac1ea4a5",
    "simhash": "1:c26d9f8135388707",
    "word_count": 99
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:17.237307+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. T. HUDNELL et al. v. L. G. DANIELS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam :\nThe Court, having carefully examined the record in. this case and given it full consideration, finds that the questions presented are largely of fact, and is of opinion that no reversible error appears in the* rulings of the' Superior Court necessitating, in the interest of substantial justice, a new trial.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Small, McLean & McMullen for plaintiffs.",
      "Ward & Grimes and Simmons, Ward cC; Allen for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. T. HUDNELL et al. v. L. G. DANIELS et al.\n(Filed 16 September, 1908.)\nAotiow heard- before Lyon, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1908, of Beaufort.\nDefendants appealed.\nSmall, McLean & McMullen for plaintiffs.\nWard & Grimes and Simmons, Ward cC; Allen for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0308-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 338
}