{
  "id": 11269626,
  "name": "B. F. WILLIAMS, Receiver, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LENOIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. First National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. 49"
    }
  ],
  "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": 99,
    "char_count": 1015,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.456583025697791e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2794861785378221
    },
    "sha256": "9b76c8ad1b54c611254d308f5631532e5014a350ead8db0376f4e32e3e4e8ae5",
    "simhash": "1:5006e77217783728",
    "word_count": 175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:28.078438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. F. WILLIAMS, Receiver, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LENOIR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Allen, J.\nThe decision of this appeal is controlled by Ervin v. Bank, at this term, and for the reasons therein stated, it is ordered that the judgment of the Superior Court be reduced by the sum of $170.31.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Allen, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Oouncill and Lawrence Wakefield for plaintiff.",
      "Mark Squires for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. F. WILLIAMS, Receiver, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LENOIR.\n(Filed 4 December, 1912.)\nUsury.\nTbe question in this case of double tbe amount of interest paid under an usurious contract controlled by tbe decision of Ervin v. BanJc, ante, 42.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lyon, J., at August Term, 1912, of Caldwell.\nTbe pleadings and facts are in all material respects like those in Ervin v. Bank, at this term, except in this case tbe referee credited tbe plaintiff with $170.31, tbe item in controversy, instead of with double tbe amount paid, as be did in tbe Ervin case. His Honor sustained an exception to allowing tbe amount, $170.31, as a credit, and tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed from tbe judgment rendered.\nW. B. Oouncill and Lawrence Wakefield for plaintiff.\nMark Squires for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 94
}