{
  "id": 11269674,
  "name": "D. T. SMITHWICK v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smithwick v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-12-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 39"
    }
  ],
  "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": 111,
    "char_count": 1133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "sha256": "14f3100c13cce230c87466032c6fb16c67b861783f4bc85042db0e49d2362e81",
    "simhash": "1:d0134e46753bad8a",
    "word_count": 187
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. T. SMITHWICK v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe evidence tends to prove that the plaintiff was seriously injured in an accident caused by the train of defendant running beyond the end of the track at the Louisburg station.\nThe negligence of the defendant was properly admitted. There was no issue as to contributory negligence submitted, and the several assignments of error relate to the instructions of the court upon the issue of damage.\nUpon examination we found no substantial error committed by the judge below, and there is- nothing disclosed by the record which we think necessitates a new trial.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Ruffin, and Spruill & Holden for plaintiff.",
      "Day, Bell & Allen and T. W. Bickett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. T. SMITHWICK v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 December, 1908.)\nInstructions.\nIn this case the assignments of error were to the judge\u2019s charge, in which no substantial error was found on appeal.\nActioN tried before Lyon, J., and a jury, at April Term, 1908, of Fbanklin, for damages for personal injury.\nThe court submitted the usual issues. The jury found for plaintiff, and from the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nWilliam H. Ruffin, and Spruill & Holden for plaintiff.\nDay, Bell & Allen and T. W. Bickett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 83
}