{
  "id": 8658144,
  "name": "F. C. FISHER v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fisher v. Montvale Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "381",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 N.C. 381"
    }
  ],
  "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": 108,
    "char_count": 944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "sha256": "ffea2bfd37e75fa0ac5672c7afff9810b8b32d07a9954957452cacf9623cccdf",
    "simhash": "1:41971354a9348432",
    "word_count": 162
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:25.630766+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. C. FISHER v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWhen this appeal was before us at last term the plaintiff was granted a certiorari to bring up a corrected ease oh. appeal. This is now before us in a very imperfect form, consisting practically of a copy of the judge\u2019s notes of the evidence.\nNevertheless, we have considered what purports to be the plaintiff\u2019s exceptions. We find them to be without merit.' The controversy appears to be one almost exclusively of fact, and is settled by the finding of the jury.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. 0. Fisher for plaintiff.",
      "Frye, Gantt & Frye, W. L. Taylor, and Bryson & Blade for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. C. FISHER v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 December, 1913.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Long, J., at October Term, 1912, of SwaiN.\nCivil action tried upon this issue:\n1. Did the female plaintiff and defendant corporation make the contract as alleged in the fifth allegation of the first cause of action of the complaint? Answer: No.\nThe plaintiff appealed.\nF. 0. Fisher for plaintiff.\nFrye, Gantt & Frye, W. L. Taylor, and Bryson & Blade for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0381-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 418
}