{
  "id": 2217884,
  "name": "CATHARINE W. BROWN v. E. F. AYDLETT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Aydlett",
  "decision_date": "1927-02-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "832",
  "last_page": "832",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 832"
    }
  ],
  "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": 132,
    "char_count": 1302,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "sha256": "3f1f83a9e0829d7750734a138973d142c2b008f556300cc53dc72ddf6258bbc3",
    "simhash": "1:20e3d5c8507032d9",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CATHARINE W. BROWN v. E. F. AYDLETT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt appearing tbat a serious controversy exists between tbe parties, and tbat no barm can result from continuing tbe restraining order to tbe bearing, while a contrary ruling might work serious injury to tbe plaintiffs, we are of opinion tbat under authority of Wentz v. Land Co., ante, 32, and cases there cited, tbe restraining order should have been continued to tbe final bearing.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. L. Small and \u00c9hringhaus & Hall for plaintiffs.",
      "P. H. Bell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CATHARINE W. BROWN v. E. F. AYDLETT et al.\n(Filed 23 February, 1927.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Nunn, J., at September Term, 1926, of Pasquotank.\nCivil action to restrain tbe foreclosure of a deed of trust, it being-alleged by the plaintiffs and denied by tbe defendants tbat tbe notes, secured by said deed of trust, have been paid, or tbat tbe balance due thereon, if any, cannot be ascertained until tbe controversy between P. H. Williams, receiver, and Catharine W. Brown, administratrix, as to tbe ownership of said-notes is determined, which said controversy is now pending in tbe Superior Court of Pasquotank County.\nFrom a judgment dissolving tbe temporary restraining order issued herein, but continuing tbe same until tbe matter could be passed upon by tbe Supreme Court, tbe plaintiffs appeal, assigning error.\nW. L. Small and \u00c9hringhaus & Hall for plaintiffs.\nP. H. Bell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0832-01",
  "first_page_order": 910,
  "last_page_order": 910
}