{
  "id": 8657594,
  "name": "HORACE R. DOWELL v. RALEIGH SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dowell v. Raleigh Savings Bank & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "680",
  "last_page": "680",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 680"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "sha256": "708305f627f576df61b621cf3891bda3c3e00285491e121c3554b321f874153a",
    "simhash": "1:cc3a42b60b42c4fa",
    "word_count": 133
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HORACE R. DOWELL v. RALEIGH SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have carefully examined this case, and can see no error in it which is sufficient ground for a reversal of the judgment. The ruling of the judge upon the evidence appears to be correct, and when the other exceptions are- considered, we agree with the court that there was not any evidence which could be held as sufficient in law to support a verdict.for the plaintiff; and the judgment of nonsuit was properly allowed. This would still be our conclusion if the rejected evidence had been admitted.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manning, Kitchin & M\u00e9bane, and Armistead Jones & Son for plaintiff.",
      "R. N. Simms for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HORACE R. DOWELL v. RALEIGH SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 April, 1920.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gui\u00f3n, J., at the October-November Term, 1919, of Wake.\nManning, Kitchin & M\u00e9bane, and Armistead Jones & Son for plaintiff.\nR. N. Simms for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0680-02",
  "first_page_order": 736,
  "last_page_order": 736
}