{
  "id": 8631712,
  "name": "TOMLINSON COMPANY, Inc., v. DIXIE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tomlinson Co. v. Dixie Fire Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1929-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "777",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 777"
    }
  ],
  "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": 122,
    "char_count": 1431,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "sha256": "1b793164af8d541a6f29292da9fe9b4daf6ed3e2a470b7775411fe23171b61a7",
    "simhash": "1:12356dc804da706d",
    "word_count": 233
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TOMLINSON COMPANY, Inc., v. DIXIE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTwo questions are involved in tbe appeal: (1) Is tbe evidence sufficient in law to warrant tbe submission to tbe jury of tbe question whether B. MacKenzie was an independent contractor? (2) Was there error in refusing tbe prayer directing a verdict for tbe plaintiff ?\nThree issues were submitted to tbe jury, and in response to tbe first it was found as a fact that MacKenzie was an independent contractor. Tbe second and third issues relating to tbe alleged indebtedness of tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff and to tbe plaintiff\u2019s right to a lien on tbe premises were answered in tbe negative. Judgment was given for tbe defendant, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nUpon an examination of tbe record we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support tbe verdict upon tbe first issue, and are of opinion that no error was committed in refusing plaintiff\u2019s prayer for special instructions directing tbe verdict for tbe plaintiff.\nTbe principles arising upon tbe exception have been so frequently before tbe Court as to make it unnecessary specifically to review tbe entire evidence in its application to tbe controlling principles of law. We find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shuping & Hampton for plaintiff.",
      "Brooles, Barker, Smith & Wharton for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOMLINSON COMPANY, Inc., v. DIXIE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc.\n(Filed 17 April, 1929.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Shaw, J., at August Term, 1928, of Guil-eoed.\nNo error.\nShuping & Hampton for plaintiff.\nBrooles, Barker, Smith & Wharton for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0777-01",
  "first_page_order": 841,
  "last_page_order": 841
}