{
  "id": 8631955,
  "name": "WILLIE POOLE v. C. H. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Poole v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1926-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "826",
  "last_page": "826",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 N.C. 826"
    }
  ],
  "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": 141,
    "char_count": 1288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "sha256": "76d8c93da2dda342408dfaaa7ac44ad6c466257ff5c3088a940a161d8aa8b3e8",
    "simhash": "1:863a812d0e00f4f9",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:36.568148+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIE POOLE v. C. H. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe appeal presents several exceptions which were \u2022the subject of earnest debate before us, and while they are not altogether free from difficulty, a careful perusal of tbe entire record confirms us in tbe belief that tbe ease has been tried in substantial accord with tbe principles of law applicable.\nTbe charge, when taken as a whole, would seem to be free from any reversible error.\nTbe case presents no new or novel question of law; it only calls for tbe application of old principles to new facts. Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace & Wells and, Manly, Hendren & Womble for plaintiff.",
      "Graves & Graves and Raymond G. Parlcer for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIE POOLE v. C. H. JONES.\n(Filed 7 April, 1926.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Finley, J., at November Term, 1925, of E OKSYTH.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury sustained by tbe plaintiff while a passenger on tbe defendant\u2019s bus operated for hire in tbe city of Winston-Salem.\nUpon denial of liability, tbe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to tbe jury, and a verdict returned in favor of tbe defendant on tbe first issue.\nFrom tbe judgment rendered thereon, denying any right of recovery, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors. ,\nWallace & Wells and, Manly, Hendren & Womble for plaintiff.\nGraves & Graves and Raymond G. Parlcer for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0826-01",
  "first_page_order": 906,
  "last_page_order": 906
}