{
  "id": 8622923,
  "name": "J. R. NEWBERN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newbern v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1928-09-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "14",
  "last_page": "15",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 14"
    }
  ],
  "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": "135 S. E., 466",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625163
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 S. E., 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653948
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0258-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3462,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9288786986869402e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7339736795465681
    },
    "sha256": "2feab1379f92ca5e03fa0de19f077e3f68bb7c01b25aa3777a9dceb232e3a8fa",
    "simhash": "1:5d879cccb000a1e0",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. R. NEWBERN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeogdeN, J.\nThis cause was considered by the Court, on a former appeal, from a judgment of nonsuit, and is reported in 195 N. C., 258, where the facts are fully set out. The questions then presented to this Court for consideration were thus stated: \u201cThe defendant denied negligence and set up: (1) the plea of contributory negligence; and (2), that the plaintiff failed to present his claim for damages in writing within sixty days after the alleged message was filed for transmission.\u201d In the former opinion the Court declares: \u201cWe think the court below was in error in sustaining defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as in ease of nonsuit under C. S., 567 . ... We do not repeat or discuss tbe evidence as tbe case goes back to tbe court below to be tried on tbe issue arising on tbe pleadings.\u201d\nTbe pleadings in tbe former case are identical witb those in tbe ease at bar and raise issues of negligence, contributory negligence, notice and damages. While tbe opinion discussed tbe aspect of notice only, a consideration of all that was set out in tbe former appeal clearly indicates that tbe Court was of tbe opinion, and so decided that tbe case should be submitted to tbe jury upon its merits and upon all issues arising upon tbe pleadings. This conclusion is fortified by tbe fact that defendant\u2019s brief in tbe former appeal specifically urged tbe contributory negligence of plaintiff as a bar to bis right of recovery, because such contributory negligence \u201cwas tbe proximate cause of tbe alleged damages.\u201d Authority was cited in support of tbe position so taken by tbe defendant. Tbe former opinion therefore becomes the law of tbe case; that is to say, \u201ca decision by tbe Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes tbe law of tbe case, both in subsequent proceedings in tbe trial court and on a subsequent appeal.\u201d Ray v. Veneer Co., 188 N. C., 414, 124 S. E., 756; Mfg. Co. v. Hodgins, 192 N. C., 577, 135 S. E., 466.\nTbe evidence tending to show that tbe plaintiff delivered to tbe carrier sweet potatoes, as specified in tbe contract, was uncertain, weak and hazy, and tbe jury might well have found that tbe plaintiff bad not delivered potatoes of tbe quality specified in tbe contract of purchase. However, upon a close examination of tbe testimony in a light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, we cannot say that there was no evidence of such delivery.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeogdeN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aydlett & Simpson for plaintiff.",
      "C. W. Tillett, Thompson & Wilson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. R. NEWBERN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.\n(Filed 12 September, 1928.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Determination and Disposition of Cause\u2014 Proceedings in Lower Court After Remand \u2014 Law of the Case.\nWhere it plainly appears from the pleadings, records and briefs on a former appeal to an opinion of the Supreme Court that all matters involved therein had been decided adversely to the appellant except one upon which a new trial had been ordered, the decision thereon is the law of the case and will not be considered again upon a second appeal involving them. o\nCivil actioN, before Clayton Moore, Special Judge, at June Term, 1928, of PasquotaNK.\nThe plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages for negligence in the transmission of a telegram for the sale of sweet potatoes.\nIssues of negligence, contributory negligence, notice and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded $500.00 damages. From judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nAydlett & Simpson for plaintiff.\nC. W. Tillett, Thompson & Wilson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0014-01",
  "first_page_order": 94,
  "last_page_order": 95
}