{
  "id": 8657696,
  "name": "D. E. PIGFORD and WIFE v. GOLDSBORO LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-03-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "683",
  "last_page": "683",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 683"
    }
  ],
  "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": 136,
    "char_count": 1402,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "sha256": "a30f2104f74178a2d3ea1e0dc4d6be0fb4f34505afcba713135b7701e88b84e9",
    "simhash": "1:907e68b0063cd4ef",
    "word_count": 225
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. E. PIGFORD and WIFE v. GOLDSBORO LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant moved to nonsuit in apt time upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to go to the jury tending to prove that plaintiffs\u2019 property was burned as a result of defendant\u2019s negligence. That is the only assignment of error. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence. It is largely circumstantial, but it is in our opinion amply sufficient in probation for us to warrant the judge in submitting the issues to the jury. Circumstantial evidence, as stated in Ashford v. Pittman, 160 N. C., 4Y, has often been allowed to determine more serious issues than those submitted in this ease.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cowper, Whitaker & Allen; Frank Thompson; L. R. Varser, and Duffy & Day for plaintiffs.",
      "Thomas D. Warren and Ward & Ward for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. E. PIGFORD and WIFE v. GOLDSBORO LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 10 March, 1920.)\nEvidence \u2014 Circumstantial Evidence \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Trials.\nCircumstantial evidence that the defendant negligently set out fire and destroyed the plaintiff\u2019s property is sufficient to overrule a judgment as of nonsuit thereon, if of sufficient probative force.\nCivil action, tried before Daniels, J., at December Term, 1919, of Onslow, upon these issues:\n\u201c1. Was the property of plaintiffs injured by fire on account of the negligence of the defendant as alleged ? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, wbat damages have plaintiffs sustained ? Answer: \u2018$1,000.\u2019 \u201d\nDefendant appealed.\nCowper, Whitaker & Allen; Frank Thompson; L. R. Varser, and Duffy & Day for plaintiffs.\nThomas D. Warren and Ward & Ward for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0683-01",
  "first_page_order": 739,
  "last_page_order": 739
}