{
  "id": 8659071,
  "name": "A. N. FISHER v. CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fisher v. Champion Fiber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "572",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 571"
    }
  ],
  "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": 118,
    "char_count": 1239,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "sha256": "4168d1c8916b6572c9d4d0c2f2ec87c5c64ca80b2ae0410efdf3eeb5c8480c43",
    "simhash": "1:1aede4e02e7a5de8",
    "word_count": 206
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. N. FISHER v. CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have examined the twenty assignments of error set out in the record, all of which, except the motion to nonsuit, relate to the charge of the court.\nThe majority of the Court are of opinion that the motion to nonsuit was properly overruled and that the charge follows the well-settled decisions of this Court.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Graig, Martin & Thomason for plaintiff.",
      "Martin & Wright for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. N. FISHER v. CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 December, 1911.)\nHeld, in this case, a judgment of nonsuit upon the evidence was properly denied the defendant, and that the charge of the 'court followed well-settled principles of law.\nAppeau from Garter, J., at May Term, 1911, of Buktcombe.\nCivil action. These issues were submitted:\n1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint?\n2. Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence which contributed to his said injury?\n3. Did tbe plaintiff assume the risks of being injured at the time mentioned, as alleged in the answer?\n4. What damages, if any, has the plaintiff sustained ?\nThe jury answered the first issue \u201cYes,\u201d the second issue \u201cNo,\u201d the third issue \u201cNo,\u201d and the fourth issue \u201c$1,150.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered defendant appealed.\nGraig, Martin & Thomason for plaintiff.\nMartin & Wright for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 611,
  "last_page_order": 612
}