{
  "id": 8617065,
  "name": "J. W. HUGHES et al. v. GEORGE T. HEWLETT et ux.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hughes v. Hewlett",
  "decision_date": "1930-10-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "810",
  "last_page": "810",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 810"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "sha256": "0c79b83c7884f8a020eedba20d86d7f868318aad7407ff9ff397ddafde757270",
    "simhash": "1:be708417a60b1249",
    "word_count": 152
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. HUGHES et al. v. GEORGE T. HEWLETT et ux."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe case resolved itself into a contest over disputed facts. The verdict speaks for itself. We have discovered no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which we apprehend erroneously influenced the result.\nIn the absence of demonstrated error, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carr, Poisson & James for plaintiffs.",
      "Herbert McClammy for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. HUGHES et al. v. GEORGE T. HEWLETT et ux.\n(Filed 15 October, 1930.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Nunn, J., at April Term, 1930, of New HaNOVER.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of covenant of seizin, tried upon the following issue :\n\u201cDid the defendants breach the covenant of seizin contained in the deed executed by them to plaintiffs, \u25a0 as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: No.\u201d (The issue of damages was not answered.)\nJudgment on the verdict for defendants, from which the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.\nCarr, Poisson & James for plaintiffs.\nHerbert McClammy for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0810-01",
  "first_page_order": 878,
  "last_page_order": 878
}