{
  "id": 11269992,
  "name": "J. J. CARSON v. J. R. BUNTING and SOUTHERN OIL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carson v. Bunting",
  "decision_date": "1911-09-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "29",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 N.C. 29"
    }
  ],
  "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": "155 N. C., 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652254
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652863
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0530-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23911741572578168
    },
    "sha256": "322b8e267eb04fd04001f88446d68400019dfe9fa4e379c212b1cead0638b4dd",
    "simhash": "1:4dafb24f8659ab58",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:22.906707+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. J. CARSON v. J. R. BUNTING and SOUTHERN OIL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark:, C. J.\nThis cause was decided at last term, Carson v. Bunting, 154 N. C., 530, in which we held that upon the pleadings and issues found tbe j'udgment ought to have been rendered for tbe plaintiff upon tbe second cause of action. Tbe judge below, upon tbe certificate of tbe oirinion of this Court, rendered judgment accordingly.\nTbe defendant excepted to tbe judgment and appealed. This presents for our consideration only tbe form of tbe judgment rendered, which is in strict conformity with our opinion. Tbe appeal is in fact, and tbe argument of tbe defendant is so based, upon tbe ground that tbe former judgment of this Court was erroneous. No other question is presented.\nIn Roberts v. Baldwin, 155 N. C., 276, Allen, J., citing many cases, said: \u201cIt bas been repeatedly decided that a judgment of this Court cannot be reviewed- by a second appeal.\u201d\nWe need not discuss a decision which has been so repeatedly made.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark:, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jarvis <& Blow a/nd Hcvrry Skinner for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Long for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. J. CARSON v. J. R. BUNTING and SOUTHERN OIL COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 September, 1911.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Second Appeal \u2014 Former Decision \u2014 Form of Judgment Below.\nA former judgment of the Supreme Court will not be considered on another appeal from the Superior Court, and on this appeal the only question presented is whether1 the form of the judgment entered by the lower court is in conformity with the former opinion.\nAppeal by defendant from O. E. Allen, J., at Spring Term, 1911, of TYRRELL.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Clark.\nJarvis <& Blow a/nd Hcvrry Skinner for plaintiff.\nMoore & Long for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0029-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 70
}