{
  "id": 8653088,
  "name": "JOHN D. KERR and Wife v. R. W. HICKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kerr v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1911-03-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 N.C. 608"
    }
  ],
  "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": "133 N. C., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656694
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659060
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N. C., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/129/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659640
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0409-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2076146138249759
    },
    "sha256": "ff55178d3f8ce05d94da6523a5d4de806fd9df7ea1ea63b9e2309d819b125eb5",
    "simhash": "1:5bf9347a6ee693b8",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:36.957085+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN D. KERR and Wife v. R. W. HICKS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis ease has been before this Court four times before, and will be found reported 122 N. C., 409; 129 N. C., 141; 131 N. C., 90; 133 N. C., 175. Summons issued in October, 1891. This branch of the case was a motion of plaintiffs to have their alleged damages caused by reason of the restraining order issued against plaintiffs, when plaintiffs restrained defendant from working timber, etc., on the land in dispute, which order likewise restrained plaintiffs from making staves, tar, etc., on the land. Defendant filed the motion set out in the record, which his Honor sustained. The injunction was issued by Judge E. T. Boylein, 10 December, 1891, nearly nineteen years ago.\nIt is manifest that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages as contended for by them.\nThe defendant was restrained from selling plaintiffs\u2019 land upon plaintiffs\u2019 application. In the meantime, and ex mero motu as a precaution, the judge compelled plaintiff to desist from cutting and removing timber. This was a condition upon which the injunction against defendant was continued until final hearing.\nThe order of the Superior Court refusing plaintiffs\u2019 motion is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. B. Cooper for plaintiff.",
      "Faison & Wright for defenda/nt."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN D. KERR and Wife v. R. W. HICKS.\n(Filed 15 March, 1911.)\ninjunction \u2014 Damages\u2014Cause of Action \u2014 Judgment.\nDefendant was restrained from selling plaintiff\u2019s land upon plaintiff\u2019s application, and ex mero motu, as a precaution, the judge restrained plaintiffs from cutting and removing timber. Plaintiffs moved for damages caused by the order restraining them, and it was Held, that a judgment upon defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was properly granted, as the damages sought were not recoverable.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Whedbee, J., at August Term, 1910, of Sampson.\nF. B. Cooper for plaintiff.\nFaison & Wright for defenda/nt."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}