{
  "id": 8632405,
  "name": "E. V. GASKINS v. MRS. EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Personally, and AS Administratrix of W. G. MITCHELL, Deceased, and EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Infant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gaskins v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1928-02-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "851",
  "last_page": "852",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 851"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 N. C., 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1341,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20736073801986138
    },
    "sha256": "ed4fc8ce7c537ad05a27adb7bf81eb60f3f19f4a1f11186abefcaffa86375b5e",
    "simhash": "1:8ab654817a3cfc61",
    "word_count": 232
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. V. GASKINS v. MRS. EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Personally, and AS Administratrix of W. G. MITCHELL, Deceased, and EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Infant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint, and if so, in what sum? Answer: No.\n\u201c2. Did the plaintiff warrant the said water system to giye satisfaction and furnish a sufficient supply of water for the operation of a soda fountain, as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c3. If so, did the said water system fail to furnish a sufficient supply of water for the operation of said soda fountain, as alleged ? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c4. If so, what damages are the defendants entitled to recover of the plaintiff by reason thereof? Answer: Not any. Mr. E. Y. Gaskins shall have his water plant back;\u201d\nThis action was here before. Gaskins v. Mitchell, 194 N. C., 275. The proper issues were submitted to the jury in accordance with the former opinion of the action.\nIt was a question of fact for the jury. On the whole record, if error, it was harmless and not prejudicial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gilliam & Spruill for plaintiff.",
      "A. T. Gastello, Oraig & Pritchell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. V. GASKINS v. MRS. EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Personally, and AS Administratrix of W. G. MITCHELL, Deceased, and EVELYN DUNNING MITCHELL, Infant.\n(Filed 29 February, 1928.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nunn, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1927, of Bertie.\nNo error.\nGilliam & Spruill for plaintiff.\nA. T. Gastello, Oraig & Pritchell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0851-02",
  "first_page_order": 923,
  "last_page_order": 924
}