{
  "id": 8658080,
  "name": "B. E. HAGOOD v. J. C. HOLLAND et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hagood v. Holland",
  "decision_date": "1922-03-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "672",
  "last_page": "673",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 672"
    }
  ],
  "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": 82,
    "char_count": 591,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "52e080e7d63b9682b62f5936e4f249271ba09a4be2795f24e420932a19d156f7",
    "simhash": "1:98fb99ce94cb0ef7",
    "word_count": 102
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. E. HAGOOD v. J. C. HOLLAND et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of same case, reported in 181 N. 0., 64, where the facts are fully- set out. They need not be repeated here. The case seems to have been tried substantially in accordance with our former opinion.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Dunn for plaintiff.",
      "Ward & Ward for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. E. HAGOOD v. J. C. HOLLAND et al.\n(Filed 15 March, 1922.)\nContracts \u2014 Damages.\nAppeal by defendants from Lyon, J., at October Term, 1921, of ObaveN, in an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract.\nFrom a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendants appealed.\nMoore & Dunn for plaintiff.\nWard & Ward for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0672-02",
  "first_page_order": 732,
  "last_page_order": 733
}