{
  "id": 8658146,
  "name": "R. C. POWELL v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY; C. B. PAGE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. Camp Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1922-03-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "676",
  "last_page": "676",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 676"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654785
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N. C., 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653614
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0330-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20767195307525652
    },
    "sha256": "2b7cc4a918f639ab66e127f765459638e1f6205ac818d43984f287f44acf930a",
    "simhash": "1:4fdae36ef73ca13b",
    "word_count": 188
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. C. POWELL v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY; C. B. PAGE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case was before us at the Fall Term, 1920, and is reported in 180 N. C., 330-. The facts were set out fully by Walker, J., in delivering the opinion on the former appeal, and need not be repeated here. From a perusal of the record it appears that the case has been tried in substantial confoimity with the law, as heretofore declared, and the present judgment must be affirmed.\nNo. 223, Powell v. Mfg. Co., being an action for damages arising out of the same fire and caused by the same engine, for like reason must be affirmed. See, also, Williams v. Camp Mfg. Co., 177 N. C., 512.\nIn both cases we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Ward and Ward & Ward for plaintiff.",
      "Stevens, Beasley & Stevens for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. C. POWELL v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY; C. B. PAGE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 March, 1922.)\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, J., at August Term, 1921, of DupliN, in an action to recover damages for an alleged negligent burning of plaintiffs\u2019 timber.\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment, tbe defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nGeorge B. Ward and Ward & Ward for plaintiff.\nStevens, Beasley & Stevens for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0676-01",
  "first_page_order": 736,
  "last_page_order": 736
}