{
  "id": 11272433,
  "name": "J. M. THRASH et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thrash v. Commissioners of Transylvania County",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "693",
  "last_page": "694",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 693"
    }
  ],
  "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": "120 N. C., 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 2064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43890840740135817
    },
    "sha256": "fb1c3505bd0ba9d32caa360997f77ee550ec5ed14cc37ec76261c08fe245ee99",
    "simhash": "1:9fda920237303aec",
    "word_count": 349
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. THRASH et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbis was an action to impeach the validity of a local election for tbe levy of a special tax in a special school district, held under the provisions of Revisal, sec. 4115, and the amendment thereto in '1907. The petition of the freeholders, approved by the county board of education, was regularly filed before the county commissioners, who ordered the election. The report of \u2019the judges of election was confirmed by the county commissioners.\nAt the close of the evidence, his Honor, intimating that he would instruct the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the plaintiffs had not made out a case, they thereupon took a non-suit and appealed.\nTbe presumption of law is in favor of tbe regularity of tbe conduct of tbe authorities, and tbe burden was upon tbe plaintiff to sbow tbe contrary. Quinn v. Lattimore, 120 N. C., 426. A careful examination of tbe testimony causes us to concur witb tbe judge below. There being no legal proposition involved, but merely an examination of tbe evidence, it can serve no purpose to recapitulate it.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Duckworth and George A. Shuford for plaintiffs.",
      "Shepherd & Shepherd and W. W. Zachery for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. THRASH et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY.\n(Filed 21 May, 1909.)\nSchool District \u2014 County Board of Education \u2014 Special Tax \u2014 Proceedings \u2014 Regularity Presumed \u2014 Burden of Proof \u2014 Instructions.\nIn an action to impeach the validity of a local election for the levy of a special tax the presumption of law is in favor of the regularity of the conduct of the authorities, with the burden on the objecting party to show the contrary; and when the regular filing of the petition and the order for the election by the county commissioners, and their confirmation of the election, are shown, no irregularity appearing, it is not error for the judge to charge the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the plaintiffs had not made out a case.\nAotioN for mandamus and injunction, beard before Ward, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1908, of TbansvlvaNIA.\nPlaintiffs appealed.\nW. B. Duckworth and George A. Shuford for plaintiffs.\nShepherd & Shepherd and W. W. Zachery for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0693-01",
  "first_page_order": 737,
  "last_page_order": 738
}