{
  "id": 11272860,
  "name": "ROBERT EATMAN v. ALBERT EATMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eatman v. Eatman",
  "decision_date": "1909",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "787",
  "last_page": "787",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 787"
    }
  ],
  "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": 58,
    "char_count": 457,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "sha256": "1e1a17d2b71351a410d908d5334b04b204109671a680d3ba9d5db4b28e069954",
    "simhash": "1:5104e5aedda0b22f",
    "word_count": 77
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT EATMAN v. ALBERT EATMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe ten assignments of error -relating to Questions of evidence are without merit and present no reversible error, and require no discussion i at our hands.\nThe controversy was submitted fairly to the jury by the judge below, and we find no error in his charge, and the exceptions to it cannot be sustained.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. C. Daniels for plaintiff.",
      "F. W. Woodard and Pou & Finch for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT EATMAN v. ALBERT EATMAN.\nC. C. Daniels for plaintiff.\nF. W. Woodard and Pou & Finch for defendant.\nPlaintiff appealed."
  },
  "file_name": "0787-01",
  "first_page_order": 831,
  "last_page_order": 831
}