{
  "id": 8654590,
  "name": "B. B. BOULDIN v. GARLAND DANIEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bouldin v. Daniel",
  "decision_date": "1909-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "283",
  "last_page": "284",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 283"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 N. C., 1009",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0146-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 104,
    "char_count": 1181,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4777765735359688e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6605074272669951
    },
    "sha256": "e57ea266afbcd790dc3587af4c5f275e97d3def926edfcf1147c7e0ec1bbfcf4",
    "simhash": "1:8a20838a341c2e2b",
    "word_count": 207
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. B. BOULDIN v. GARLAND DANIEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nUpon an examination of the record in this case, the Court is of opinion that the questions involved are entirely questions of fact and that they have been settled by the verdict of the jury.\nWe find no merit in the assignments of error relating to the evidence and the charge.\nThe motion of the defendant for a' new trial, based upon the defendant\u2019s affidavit in respect to the testimony of Yanderford, is a matter strictly within the sound discretion of the judge below. The same is true in regard to a motion for new trial for that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence'. Freeman v. Bell, 150 N. C., 146; Benton v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 1009.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stedman & Coolce for plaintiff.",
      "ff. S. Bradshaw and Q. E. McLean for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. B. BOULDIN v. GARLAND DANIEL.\n(Filed 11 November, 1909.)\nDiscretion of Trial Court \u2014 Verdict\u2014Weight of Evidence \u2014 Testimony of Witnesses.\nMotion for new trial upon affidavit in respect to the testimony of a witness, and for that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the- evidence, are matters strictly within the discretion of the lower court.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, J., August Term, 1907, of Guilford.\nStedman & Coolce for plaintiff.\nff. S. Bradshaw and Q. E. McLean for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0283-01",
  "first_page_order": 327,
  "last_page_order": 328
}