{
  "id": 8657677,
  "name": "D. J. THIES v. S. B. TANNER, Jr., and J. S. DURHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thies v. Tanner",
  "decision_date": "1920-05-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "682",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 682"
    }
  ],
  "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": 64,
    "char_count": 543,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "sha256": "3ad9ed2cc383f13ba71d50dc9f4f6ab4d06ad342c5a0bc736b2702e37379892e",
    "simhash": "1:03a94258da8e9a3c",
    "word_count": 90
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. J. THIES v. S. B. TANNER, Jr., and J. S. DURHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe pertinent and controlling facts in this case are substantially the same as those of Wittson v. Dowling, ante, 542, and for the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment for plaintiff enforcing the contract of purchase is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tillett & Guthrie and C. H. Gover for plaintiff.",
      "Cansler & Cansler for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. J. THIES v. S. B. TANNER, Jr., and J. S. DURHAM.\n(Filed 12 May, 1920.)\n(For digest, see Wittson v. Dowling, ante, 542.)\nCONTROVERSY without action, heard before Lane, J., at March Term, 1920, of MecKLEnburo.\nTillett & Guthrie and C. H. Gover for plaintiff.\nCansler & Cansler for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0682-01",
  "first_page_order": 738,
  "last_page_order": 738
}