{
  "id": 11271841,
  "name": "MARY GODFREY v. ELIZABETH CITY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Godfrey v. Elizabeth City",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "696",
  "last_page": "696",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 696"
    }
  ],
  "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": 132,
    "char_count": 1544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "sha256": "d906b02a7889e28233732902d2b82bbe37c62a8bd160b159903a4a8ce7177b96",
    "simhash": "1:d1c317de51425769",
    "word_count": 250
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY GODFREY v. ELIZABETH CITY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiajm.\nWe have carefully examined the evidence and are of opinion that giving it the most favorable construction for the plaintiff, there is no evidence of negligence unless we hold that maintaining a drainway 15 or \u00cd8 inches deep, in an unfrequented section of the city, which was then being developed, without further description as to how it is constructed, which runs across the street and is covered by a bridge a greater part of the distance, itself establishes negligence, which we cannot do.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiajm."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. L. Oohoon and Ward & Thompson for plaintiff.",
      "Thomas J. Marlcham for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY GODFREY v. ELIZABETH CITY.\n(Filed 21 February, 1917.)\nMunicipal Corporations \u2014 Cities and Towns \u2014 Negligence\u2014Evidence\u2014Trials\u2014 Nonsuit.\nEvidence that a city maintained a drainway 18 inches deep across its street in an unfrequented section, then being developed, without description as to its construction, and wliich was covered by a bridge a greater part of the distance, is not of itself sufficient showing of actionable negligence on the part of the city to sustain a verdict for damages for a personal injury sustained there.\nCivil actioN, tried before Whedbee, J., at September Term, 1916., of PasquotaNK.\nThis is .an action to recover damages for physical injury caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant in failure to keep one of its streets in proper repair and sufficiently lighted.\nAt the close of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, on motion of the defendant, there was judgment of nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nW. L. Oohoon and Ward & Thompson for plaintiff.\nThomas J. Marlcham for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0696-01",
  "first_page_order": 754,
  "last_page_order": 754
}