{
  "id": 8620626,
  "name": "W. N. THOMAS v. BUS LINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Bus Line",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "798",
  "last_page": "798",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 798"
    }
  ],
  "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": 100,
    "char_count": 994,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "sha256": "d16aa8a0f8198c07ac3e96e7066484ce6d9edd5cd17c5ec627871e7552282b7e",
    "simhash": "1:5bf36c84cc4ee022",
    "word_count": 169
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. N. THOMAS v. BUS LINE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe record presents an issue of fact and no more- The plaintiff\u2019s testimony tends to show negligence on the part of defendant. The evidence of defendant tends to show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.\nThe charge of the court is not included in the record, and therefore it is presumed that the trial judge properly instructed the jury upon each and every phase of the law applicable to the facts. In this situation the jury was the sole arbiter.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Horton for plaintiff.",
      "Siler <& Barber for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. N. THOMAS v. BUS LINE.\n(Filed 19 October, 1927.)\nCivil actioN, before Hands, J., at March Term, 1927, of Chatham.\nThe plaintiff sued the defendant for negligently striking and damaging his automobile on a public highway. The defendant denied that it was negligent and pleaded contributory negligence of the plaintiff as a har to recovery.\nThere was a. verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $175. From judgment thereon the defendant appealed.\nW. P. Horton for plaintiff.\nSiler <& Barber for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0798-02",
  "first_page_order": 866,
  "last_page_order": 866
}