{
  "id": 8655420,
  "name": "L. E. MILLER v. ACORN REFINING COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Acorn Refining Co.",
  "decision_date": "1924-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "828",
  "last_page": "828",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 828"
    }
  ],
  "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., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654091
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0471-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1231,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2076402909976605
    },
    "sha256": "4d4faa557891bf6ade8b1e6c8157fc3923b253bc07b19b13b43302b2f6214580",
    "simhash": "1:b36a06973b7595c9",
    "word_count": 208
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. E. MILLER v. ACORN REFINING COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OueiaM.\nThe first assignment of error is as follows: \u201cExceptions 1 to 16, inclusive, relate to the introduction of evidence. (R, pp. 6 to 14, inclusive.)\u201d And the third assignment of error is of the same tenor. Ye are precluded from considering these exceptions, as they do not comply with the rules of practice prescribed for the presentation of exceptions on appeal. Rules are of no value unless they are to be observed uniformly and without exception, in the absence of some valid reason therefor. Leonard v. Davis, 187 N. C., 471.\nThe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made at the close of plaintifE\u2019s- evidence, was properly overruled.\nThe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Phillips & Bower for plaintiff.",
      "Walser & Walser and Z. I. Walser for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. E. MILLER v. ACORN REFINING COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 12 November, 1924.)\nAppeal by defendant from Lane, J., at May Term, 1924, of DAVIDSON.\nCivil action, to recover balance due on salary, or wages, it being alleged that plaintiff was employed by the defendant to render certain services in connection with the sale of its products in North Carolina.\nFrom a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $187.00, the defendant appeals.\nPhillips & Bower for plaintiff.\nWalser & Walser and Z. I. Walser for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0828-01",
  "first_page_order": 898,
  "last_page_order": 898
}