{
  "id": 8658027,
  "name": "T. W. HOLTON v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holton v. Norfolk Southern Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "155",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 N.C. 155"
    }
  ],
  "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": "157 N. C., 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3209,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3192550994285767
    },
    "sha256": "f3ed5299f746483f7c1a0ff90e2b9ece47906f82828a674b7eaaede041088169",
    "simhash": "1:173733a87a4c92fc",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:28.606556+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. W. HOLTON v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nThe evidence in the cause is not very fully stated in the ease on appeal agreed upon by counsel, and we find some difficulty in making satisfactory disposition of the questions presented. From a perusal of the evidence, in so far as given, and a statement of the positions of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, made in his Honor\u2019s charge to the jury, it appears that .a lot of live stock, horses and mules,-were shipped to plaintiff over defendant company\u2019s road; that they were transported to New Bern, the terminal point, in good condition, and one or more of them were injured in being unloaded. It seems that plaintiff was present at this unloading, a\u00f1d that some of -the stock pushed against others as they were passing down the stock chute, and the rail of the chute gave away, causing one or more of the horses to fall, by reason of which the injury occurred.\n'It is well understood that railroad companies transporting live stock, under an ordinary contract of shipment, are considered as common carriers and held as insurers of safe delivery, except \u201cfor injuries arising from the natural vices or the inherent nature and propensities of the animals themselves or from the vitality of the freight, as it is sometimes expressed,\u201d and as to these, the carriers are only responsible for injuries attributable to their negligence. Harden v. R. R., 157 N. C., 238.\nIn recognition of this principle, the present case was determined on an issue as to the company\u2019s negligence, and the court, being of opinion that the question depended on whether the stock chute was rotten or defective, submitted the case in that aspect, and there was verdict for the plaintiff. In the opening of the ease on appeal, however, the statement appears: \u201cThat the slide or chute .was of the character and construction ordinarily used by the road for this purpose\u201d; \u201cthat the same was in good condition and apparently had no defects.\u201d From this it would seem, as the record now appears, that there was no testimony tending to show that the chute was rotten or defective, and there was prejudicial error in directing the jury to decide the issue on that question.\nAfter giving the matter most careful consideration, we are of opinion that there should be a new trial of the cause, and it is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Dunn for defendant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. W. HOLTON v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 18 March, 1914.)\nCarriers of Goods \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Live Stock \u2014 Trial\u2014Issues\u2014Evi\u2022dence.\nIt appearing in this case that the question of defendant railroad company\u2019s negligence and its liability for damages to a shipment of live stock was made to depend upon an issue as to whether a stock chute, used for unloading the stock, was defective, and as a fact from the record on appeal that the \u201cchute 'was of the character and construction ordinarily\u201d used for the purpose, \u201cwas in good condition and apparently had no defects,\u201d a new trial is ordered.\nAppeal by defendant from WheAbee, J., at November Term, \u25a0 1913, of CRAVEN.\nCivil action to ' recover dam'ages for injuries' to live stock shipped.over road of defendant company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nMoore & Dunn for defendant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0155-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 205
}