{
  "id": 11271794,
  "name": "JENNIE B. WILLIAMS et als. v. A. P. HYMAN, Administrator of Maggie W. Hyman et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Hyman",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "166",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 166"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N. C., 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N. C., 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649909
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/102/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C., 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277592
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1624,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23913363288747722
    },
    "sha256": "fb3b9e60ef93def75247b2696e5c2872f817acb8fd35b54bbe68c3220fc2005f",
    "simhash": "1:7b3376da305617a1",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JENNIE B. WILLIAMS et als. v. A. P. HYMAN, Administrator of Maggie W. Hyman et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuRiAM.\nUpon a consideration of tbis record we are of opinion tbat tbe controversy is practically determined by tbe findings of fact made by tbe court below, wbicb we are not at liberty to disturb. There is evidence to support tbe findings and in sucb case tbey are binding upon us. Gudger v. Baird, 66 N. C., 438; Battle v. Mayo, 102 N. C., 413; Dunavant v. R. R., 122 N. C., at page 1001; Lewis v. Covington, 130 N. C., 542. In tbe l\u00e1tter case it is said: \u201cTbe exceptions of tbe defendant to tbe findings of fact by tbe referee are tbat said findings are contrary to tbe weight of evidence, or tbat tbey are not supported by tbe evidence, but none of these exceptions are put upon tbe ground tbat there was.no evidence to support them. And tbis being so, we have no right to review them and must take them as found by tbe referees and tbe presiding judge.\u201d\nTbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gilliam & Gilliam, B. M. Gatling for plaintiff.",
      "W. Stamps Sowar A, G. M. T. Fountain & Son for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JENNIE B. WILLIAMS et als. v. A. P. HYMAN, Administrator of Maggie W. Hyman et als.\n(Filed 12 October, 1910.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Referee\u2014Findings\u2014 Evidence.\nExceptions to the findings of fact by a referee, approved by tbe trial judge, if supported by any evidence, will not be considered on appeal. '\nAppeal from Gmon, J., at tbe April.Term, 1910, of Edge-COMBE.\nCivil action beard upon exceptions to report of referee.\nHis Honor overruled defendant\u2019s exceptions, affirmed tbe findings of fact of tbe referee and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nGilliam & Gilliam, B. M. Gatling for plaintiff.\nW. Stamps Sowar A, G. M. T. Fountain & Son for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0166-01",
  "first_page_order": 214,
  "last_page_order": 215
}