{
  "id": 11273031,
  "name": "W. F. DOBSON v. W. U. TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dobson v. W. U. Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1910-05-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "766",
  "last_page": "766",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 766"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7540204081396251
    },
    "sha256": "23951a07a7be3e0ac39782fc2c4e94c45ca63627bc36eaf99e33e21dfe6f8424",
    "simhash": "1:a1cdba873eb235fb",
    "word_count": 211
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. F. DOBSON v. W. U. TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:.\nWe have examined the record and considered the assignment of error of the defendant, and are unable to find any substantial error committed which warrants us in directing another trial.\nThe cause seems to have been tried in line with the settled principles laid down in the decisions of this Court.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Avery & Ervin for plaintiff.",
      "Avery & Avery and G. II. Fearons for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. F. DOBSON v. W. U. TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant.\n(Filed 25 May, 1910.)\nUpon examination of assignments of error in tliis case, no substantial error is found.\nAppeal from Justice, J., at December Term, 1909, of Burke.\nCivil action to recover damages for negligence and unreasonable delay in the delivery of the following telegram:\nBridgewater, N. C., 10-19-1908.\nTo EletoheR DobsoN, Morganton, N. G.\nLillie Hicks is dead. Bury to-morrow at 3 P. M.\nJOHN HlGKS.\nThese issues were submitted:\n1. Did defendant company negligently fail to transmit and deliver the telegram, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. If the telegram had been delivered without unnecessary delay, could and would the plaintiff have attended the funeral of Lillie Hicks? Answer: Yes.\n3. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant ? Answer: $500.\nProm the judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.\nAvery & Ervin for plaintiff.\nAvery & Avery and G. II. Fearons for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0766-01",
  "first_page_order": 814,
  "last_page_order": 814
}