{
  "id": 8655132,
  "name": "FARMERS BANKING & TRUST CO., Admr., v. GEORGE M. FOUNTAIN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Banking & Trust Co. v. Fountain",
  "decision_date": "1924-09-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "812",
  "last_page": "813",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 812"
    }
  ],
  "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": "187 N. C., 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653696
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0335-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1721,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20763604364578783
    },
    "sha256": "f2ef6e5eafb0ad08776064776347ff68b5f6817bf59be5082934952a59286daa",
    "simhash": "1:33905bdfc5f11889",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FARMERS BANKING & TRUST CO., Admr., v. GEORGE M. FOUNTAIN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThis is the same case which was heard and determined by us at the last term under the title of Cobb v. Fountain, 187 N. C., 335. The change in the title of the cause is occasioned by the death of Mr. D. E. Cobb, wbo was administrator of tbe estate of Nancy L. Hargrove, deceased, and tbe appointment of tbe plaintiff as bis successor, administrator de bonis non of tbe estate of Nancy L. Hargrove, and tbe substitution of tbe latter, by consent, as plaintiff herein.\nA careful perusal of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression tbat tbe case bas been tried substantially in agreement witb tbe opinion heretofore, rendered. Tbe vital question presented by tbe appeal is whether tbe evidence, offered by tbe defendants, shows such rare and exceptional circumstances as to justify tbe guardian in investing bis ward\u2019s funds outside of tbe State. Yiewing tbe evidence in its entirety and as a whole, we think tbe ease was properly submitted to tbe jury, and they have found for tbe defendants.\nNo benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe chief question is whether it is sufficient t\u00f3 be submitted to tbe jury, and we think it is. There is certainly more than a scintilla of evidence to support tbe defendants\u2019 position.\nWe have discovered no ruling or action on tbe part of tbe trial court which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Hence, tbe verdict and judgment as rendered will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "ATlsbroolc & Philips for plaintiff.",
      "Don Gilliam and George M. Fountain for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FARMERS BANKING & TRUST CO., Admr., v. GEORGE M. FOUNTAIN et al.\n(Filed 10 September, 1924.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at June Term, 1924, of Edge-COMBE.\nATlsbroolc & Philips for plaintiff.\nDon Gilliam and George M. Fountain for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0812-02",
  "first_page_order": 882,
  "last_page_order": 883
}