{
  "id": 8659008,
  "name": "MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. J. SPRUNT NEWTON et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Merchants National Bank v. Newton",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "363",
  "last_page": "363",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 N.C. 363"
    }
  ],
  "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": 153,
    "char_count": 1743,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7548057886557657e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8954004654325407
    },
    "sha256": "8f073f46fd99f2baadfcc255375363434418cba67495facd506d4532518fe311",
    "simhash": "1:453cd4b7ef3e3e8f",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:28.606556+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. J. SPRUNT NEWTON et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nA perusal of the statute will disclose that the question rests in the sound legal discretion of the court, and, as we find no such abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor as to raise a legal question for our decision, the judgment is affirmed.\nWe deem it not improper to say that this ruling is not to be considered as a final disposition of the matter. It is one of th'ose questions which, for good reasons shown, may be renewed in the progress of the cause, and,\u2019 if presented under different conditions, may call for a different decision. In any event, it is open to the parties in this instance, as the court has very properly made his ruling without prejudice.\nThere is no error, and the judgnent of the court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston & Biggs for plaintiff.",
      "Shaw & McLean, McLean, Varser & McLean,, and Jones & Bailey for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. J. SPRUNT NEWTON et als.\n(Filed 8 April, 1914.)\nStatutes \u2014 Evidence\u2014Motions to Inspect and Copy \u2014 Court\u2019s Discretion.\nIt is within the discretion of the trial judge to refuse an application to inspect and photograph a note, the subject of the controversy, under the statute; but the denial of such motion is without prejudice, for an affirmative order may nevertheless be rendered under conditions appearing to. the trial court to call for it.\nAppeal by defendant from Qoohe, J., at January Term, 1914, of Wake.\nIn tbis action, pending in the Superior Court of Wake County, before his 'Honor, C. M. Cooke, judge, the same issue being presented as to the forgery of the note sued on, application was made for an order to inspect and photograph the note in question, and the motion was denied by the court, \u201call without prejudice,\u201d and defendants excepted and appealed.\nWinston & Biggs for plaintiff.\nShaw & McLean, McLean, Varser & McLean,, and Jones & Bailey for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0363-01",
  "first_page_order": 411,
  "last_page_order": 411
}