{
  "id": 8616434,
  "name": "W. T. SMITH et al. v. COLLINS-AIKMAN CORPORATION, Employer, and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Collins-Aikman Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1930-04-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "621",
  "last_page": "622",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 621"
    }
  ],
  "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": 155,
    "char_count": 1597,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.603375138859447
    },
    "sha256": "237e70a26109a6264a08cb75d8e3131b508b8243dcaf3f8dfb9eb42c951dc30f",
    "simhash": "1:825b35171569fa89",
    "word_count": 256
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. T. SMITH et al. v. COLLINS-AIKMAN CORPORATION, Employer, and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeogdbN, J.\nThe identical question presented by this appeal was considered and decided in the case of Hettie H. Smith, Administratrix, v. Carolina Power and Light Co., ante, 614.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeogdbN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. A. Hall and J. A. Bailey for plaintiffs.",
      "Biggs & Broughton for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. T. SMITH et al. v. COLLINS-AIKMAN CORPORATION, Employer, and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 23 April, 1930.)\n(For Digest see Smith v. Light Co., ante, 614.)\nCivil actioN, before Harris, J., 27 January, 1930. From Person.\nRosabelle Smith received an injury in the course of her employment, resulting in instant death.\nThe deceased left a husband and three small children, who, under section 39 of the Compensation Law, are conclusively deemed to be dependents. The insurance carrier offered to settle in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Compensation Act. The dependents refused to accept tbe offer upon the ground that they were entitled to receive $6,000. A hearing was had and the Industrial Commission awarded a compensation of $7.50 per week for a period of 350 weeks, and in addition thereto, ordered that funeral expenses, not to exceed $200, and all medical bills be paid by the insurance carrier.\nFrom the order so made, the dependents appealed to the full Commission. After considering the matter, the full Commission affirmed the award theretofore made in the cause. Whereupon, the dependents appealed to the Superior Court. The trial judge approved and affirmed the decision and award of the Industrial Commission, and the dependents appealed to the Supreme Court from said judgment.\nO. A. Hall and J. A. Bailey for plaintiffs.\nBiggs & Broughton for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0621-01",
  "first_page_order": 691,
  "last_page_order": 692
}