{
  "id": 11255916,
  "name": "W. L. WYATT v. CITY OF RALEIGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wyatt v. City of Raleigh",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "847",
  "last_page": "847",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 847"
    }
  ],
  "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": 150,
    "char_count": 1768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31188999821997343
    },
    "sha256": "5a0d0d0fe249b34ef2d751dad292ecb78ef703f091696a8298e7d7f5b00dcd78",
    "simhash": "1:0bb9659a2bfdd73e",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. L. WYATT v. CITY OF RALEIGH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cukiam.\nThe only assignment of error relating to the evidence is to that of George M. Harden, who testified as to the condition of the streets of Raleigh on the morning that the accident occurred, and it is without merit. The other assignments of error, six in number, all relate to the first issue, referring to the alleged negligence of the defendant.\nThe said assignments are without merit. The charge is a clear and correct presentation of the well settled principles of law applicable to this case. But if the charge was in some respects erroneous, as contended by the plaintiff, it would not matter, for the jury found the second issue against the plaintiff, and there are no assignments of error as to the charge upon that issue.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Willis Smith for plaintiff.",
      "John W. Hinsdale, Jr.-, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. L. WYATT v. CITY OF RALEIGH.\n(Filed 18 October, 1916.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Issues\u2014Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Harmless Error.\nWhere the action to recover damages for the negligent killing of a mule has heen submitted upon the three issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and amount of damage, a charge upon the second issue, answered \u201cYes,\u201d if erroneous, is not reversible error as to plaintiff, when the jury have answered the first \u201cNo,\u201d to which no exception was taken by him.\nActioN tried at June Term, 1916, of \"Wake, before Connor, J., upon these issues:\n1. Was the plaintiff\u2019s mule killed as a result of the negligence of defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n2. If so, did plaintiff contribute by bis own negligence to the cause of the death of the said mule? Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. What sum, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant as damages? Answer: .\nFrom the judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.\nWillis Smith for plaintiff.\nJohn W. Hinsdale, Jr.-, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0847-01",
  "first_page_order": 913,
  "last_page_order": 913
}