{
  "id": 8654931,
  "name": "HOBART ROGERS v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Suncrest Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1923-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "783",
  "last_page": "783",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 783"
    }
  ],
  "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": 104,
    "char_count": 1053,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "sha256": "810eda1f0e41172a691b552b376aabdb92246fa2f365839c9d99d139e7728048",
    "simhash": "1:b67f3c5038189982",
    "word_count": 174
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HOBART ROGERS v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe only material exception presented in this case is one directed to the court\u2019s charge on the measure of damages. The instruction here complained of is substantially the same instruction as that given on the issue of damages in Murphy v. Lumber Co., ante, 746, just decided, and which was there the subject of exception. The present case is controlled by what was said in the Murphy case.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morgan & Ward for plaintiff.",
      "Alley & Alley for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOBART ROGERS v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 20 December, 1923.)\nAppeal by defendant from Bryson, J., at September Term, 1923, of Haywood.\nCivil action, tried upon the following issues:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendants, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: \u2018No.\u2019\n\u201c3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: \u2018$5,000.\u2019\u201d\nFrom a judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nMorgan & Ward for plaintiff.\nAlley & Alley for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0783-01",
  "first_page_order": 847,
  "last_page_order": 847
}