{
  "id": 8654760,
  "name": "W. S. PEARCE v. DURHAM AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearce v. Durham & South Carolina Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1923-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "772",
  "last_page": "772",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 772"
    }
  ],
  "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": 133,
    "char_count": 1356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "b2fb8d87ede6ca11118b36c429d6df7e7a6904914d8f13404f0301a6780e44e8",
    "simhash": "1:1d427992f13f391e",
    "word_count": 223
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. S. PEARCE v. DURHAM AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nTbe trial of this cause reduced itself to a controversy over issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of tbe record convinces us that tbe case bas been tried substantially in accordance, with tbe law bearing on tbe subject, and we bave discovered no ruling or action on tbe part of tbe trial-court which would seem to require another bearing. Tbe chief exceptions are those directed to alleged errors in tbe charge and to tbe court\u2019s refusal to grant tbe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. There is nothing on tbe record which entitles tbe defendant to a new trial or to a dismissal. .\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglass & Douglass and Armistead J ones & Son for plaintiff.",
      "FuMer & Fuller for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. S. PEARCE v. DURHAM AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 31 October, 1923.)\nAppeal by defendant, Durham and South Carolina Bailroad Company, from Cramner, J., at March Term, 1923, of Waice.\nCivil action tried upon tbe following issues:\n\u201c1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe Durham and South Carolina Bailroad Company, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. What amount of damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: \u2018$2,750.\u2019\u201d\nJudgment on tbe verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nDouglass & Douglass and Armistead J ones & Son for plaintiff.\nFuMer & Fuller for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0772-01",
  "first_page_order": 836,
  "last_page_order": 836
}