{
  "id": 8653289,
  "name": "BANK v. COTTON COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bank v. Cotton Co.",
  "decision_date": "1924-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "65",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 N.C. 65"
    }
  ],
  "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": 43,
    "char_count": 304,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "sha256": "4c8c32d8cb7b03d79c9f78cea9fedb84c3fb7c89bac6f398f929dfe137dec9c8",
    "simhash": "1:5145743cdac8398c",
    "word_count": 52
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:52.896945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "ClaeksoN, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BANK v. COTTON COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case, by consent, was consolidated and heard with Bank of Union v. Heath, and involves the same questions as are presented in that case. For the reasons there given, the judgment in this case is also\nAffirmed.\nClaeksoN, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BANK v. COTTON COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 January, 1924.)"
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 133,
  "last_page_order": 133
}