{
  "id": 8630342,
  "name": "J. M. SUTTON v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sutton v. Suncrest Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1929-01-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "820",
  "last_page": "820",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 820"
    }
  ],
  "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": 167,
    "char_count": 1784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "sha256": "ca5c53b94d146d5b3f955fd596ea8f37b734d072ce528fa18659d6f09a080a42",
    "simhash": "1:b121ccee2bfc24db",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. SUTTON v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nEven if it be conceded that on the record the jury might well have returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, still the evidence of the plaintiff, taken in its most favorable light, the accepted position on a motion to nonsuit, was such as to require its submission to the twelve.\nA careful perusal of the record discloses no material or substantial error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morgan & Ward and M. G. Stamey for plaintiff.",
      "Rollins & Smathers for defendcmts."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. SUTTON v. SUNCREST LUMBER COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 9 January, 1929.)\nAppeal by defendant from Hanuood, Special Judge, at September Term, 1928, of Haywood.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury sustained by plaintiff while working as a \u201ctong-hooker\u201d at one of the defendant company\u2019s steam log-loaders.\nIt is alleged that plaintiff\u2019s injury was due to an overhead cable being stretched too tight, which caused \u201cthe shackle-pin\u201d to break and throw the \u201cfall block\u201d or the shackle and cable against plaintiff, injuring his legs and back and fracturing a rib.\nPlaintiff testified: \u201cThe weight of the overhead cable is on the shackle-pin. If the cable is too tight, it is dangerous. The foreman told the rigger that morning to loosen the cable as it was dangerous. He said it was too tight. But after telling the rigger to loosen the line, the foreman went ahead with the logging with the line in that condition. The block fell 40 or 50 feet, striking me on the back and inflicting serious injury.\u201d\nIssues of negligence and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff.' From the judgment rendered thereon the defendants appeal, assigning as their chief error the refusal of the court to enter judgment as in case of nonsuit.\nMorgan & Ward and M. G. Stamey for plaintiff.\nRollins & Smathers for defendcmts."
  },
  "file_name": "0820-01",
  "first_page_order": 900,
  "last_page_order": 900
}