{
  "id": 8632611,
  "name": "A. J. MEDLIN v. TOWN OF WAKE FOREST",
  "name_abbreviation": "Medlin v. Town of Wake Forest",
  "decision_date": "1928-03-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "861",
  "last_page": "862",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 861"
    }
  ],
  "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., 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611392
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0715-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073659506789778
    },
    "sha256": "4c184864ccba4a98773e498105fb3a487eebd7e3a350be43b1e1b21206448227",
    "simhash": "1:e092a98c183ca0d7",
    "word_count": 404
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. J. MEDLIN v. TOWN OF WAKE FOREST."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cttbiam.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto, were as follows :\n\u201c1. Has the property of the plaintiff been injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.\n\u201c2. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer:.\u201d\nThe record discloses that by agreement \u201cthe jury is allowed to go to Wake Forest and view the place.\u201d\nFrom a careful inspection of the record, we think the charge is sustained by the rule laid down in this jurisdiction. Yowmans v. Hendersonville, 175 N. C., p. 574; Eller v. Greensboro, 190 N. C., 715; Gore v. Wilmington, 194 N. C., 450.\nThe learned counsel for plaintiff in their brief say: \u201cBy the frequent use of the word \u2018substantial\u2019 in the charge, with no explanation as to its application, his Honor misled the jury.\u201d\nThe court below was not called upon in the charge to the jury to define \u201csubstantial injury\u201d or \u201csubstantial damage.\u201d No prayer for instruction to that effect was requested. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 2 ed., p. 1117, defines \u201csubstantial damage\u201d: \u201cA sum assessed by way of damages, which is worth having; opposed to nominal damages, which are assessed to satisfy a bare legal right. Wharton.\u201d\nBefore closing the charge to the jury, the court asked if there were any other phases of the evidence or any other contentions that either side desired called to the attention of the jury, and counsel for both sides stated there were none.\nThe matter was a question of fact for the jury. In law we can find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cttbiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "N. Y. Gulley and Douglass & Douglass for plaintiff.",
      "Mills & Mills and Pou & Pou for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. J. MEDLIN v. TOWN OF WAKE FOREST.\n(Filed 21 March, 1928.)\nTrial \u2014 Instructions\u2014Form, Requisites and Sufficiency.\nAn exception to the charge that the word \u201csubstantial\u201d was unduly repeated as to the damages recoverable is not sustained under the facts of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Townsend, J., at November Special Term, 1927, of Wake.\nNo error.\nThis is an action by plaintiff against defendant for actionable negligence. For negligently paving and constructing its streets without providing adequate drains and culverts so that surface water was collected and concentrated, in an artificial drain, causing an unnatural flow of water in manner, volume and mass which was. thrown on plaintiff\u2019s lot causing substantial injury, for which damage is asked.\nN. Y. Gulley and Douglass & Douglass for plaintiff.\nMills & Mills and Pou & Pou for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0861-01",
  "first_page_order": 933,
  "last_page_order": 934
}