{
  "id": 8655375,
  "name": "T. P. ASHFORD v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ashford v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1923-03-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "89",
  "last_page": "90",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. 89"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 N. C., 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272806
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658440
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269133
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0073-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3582,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.958390671357453e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4217869458798563
    },
    "sha256": "8332f2e72730246577e02eb1da662d2ac7e9f36ac5185b5e453f543b5a35c7ef",
    "simhash": "1:981206aed08e9ceb",
    "word_count": 602
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:28.944101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. P. ASHFORD v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, C. J.\nThe original service was made on a local agent of the railroad company. W. D. Hines, Director General, appeared in the register\u2019s court, defended the action, and appealed from the judgment to the Superior Court. The general appearance waived all defects and irregularities, and would have been sufficient even if there bad been no service at all of the summons shown. C. S., 490.\nThis action was begun before 1 March, 1920, and there being no stated time in which the agent of the government designated to be substituted for the former Director General was to be made a party, the motion to-dismiss the action was properly denied. Bagging Co. v. R. R., 184 N. C., 73.\nThe motion to nonsuit was properly disallowed, as the court could not consider any of the defendant\u2019s testimony in its favor on such motion,, but must take the evidence in the most favorable aspect for the plaintiff. Guano Co. v. Mercantile Co., 168 N. C., 223.\nThe charge of the court put the burden on the plaintiff, not only to prove that the defendant was negligent, but also that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. There was no error in refusing the prayers of the defendant as the instructions given substantially covered all that the defendant was entitled to. The issues submitted by the court were sufficient to present all the controverted matters in the ease, and there was no error in rejecting those tendered. Bank v. Ins. Co., 150 N. C., 770.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. A. Nurm for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Dunn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. P. ASHFORD v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent.\n(Filed 7 March, 1923.)\n1. Summons \u2014 Process\u2014Appearance\u2014Waiver\u2014Railroads\u2014Director General \u2014 Government.\nDuring the government control of railroads as a war measure, objection for the want of proper service of summons, in an action against one of the railroads, cannot be maintained when the Director General of Railroads has entered a general appearance, amounting to a waiver of insufficient service.\n3.Government \u2014 Railroads \u2014 Summons \u2014 Process\u2014Service\u2014Substituted Agent \u2014 Parties.\nAn action against the Director General of Railroads, brought prior to 1 March, 1920, should not be dismissed because service had not been made on the substituted agent of the government appointed under the provisions of the transportation act of 1920, there -being no time stated in the act in which such substituted agent shall be made a party.\n3. Evidence \u2014 Nonsuit.\nThe defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit will not be allowed when regarding the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is sufficient to sustain his alleged cause of action.\n4. Instructions \u2014 Requests for Instructions \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nThe refusal of defendant\u2019s requested prayers for instruction is not error when the judge has substantially given them in his general charge.\n5. Issues \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nThe refusal by the judge of issues tendered by a party to the action is not error when the issues submitted were sufficient to present all the controverted matters in the case.\nAppeal by defendant from Calvert, J., at October Term, 1922, of CRAVEN.\nThis is an action to recover damages for loss of goods by negligence of tbe common carrier. The action was begun 16 May, 1919, against \"W\". D. Hines, Director General. Before the trial in the Superior Court, the defendant J. C. Davis was appointed agent by the President under section 206 of the Transportation Act of 1920, and the motion was made by plaintiff at the trial to substitute him in place of Hines, Director General, as Director. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nB. A. Nurm for plaintiff.\nMoore & Dunn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0089-01",
  "first_page_order": 155,
  "last_page_order": 156
}