{
  "id": 8626604,
  "name": "ANNIE BELL DURHAM v. LUECO LLOYD, Executor of CAROLINE LLOYD et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Durham v. Lloyd",
  "decision_date": "1931-03-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "803",
  "last_page": "803",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 803"
    }
  ],
  "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": "146 S. E., 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 823",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630505,
        8630483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0823-02",
        "/nc/196/0823-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.326647750613137e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9429385651441454
    },
    "sha256": "e98aa9f96d6fb7e00f30080b2a56d08114043f19fe7a78b701ab09eb0a154965",
    "simhash": "1:919c884815611447",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BrogdeN, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANNIE BELL DURHAM v. LUECO LLOYD, Executor of CAROLINE LLOYD et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\n. The court being evenly divided in opinion as to the validity of defendant\u2019s assignments of error on his appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, Brogden, J., not sitting, the judgment is affirmed, in accordance with the practice in this Court. This decision disposes of the appeal, without becoming a precedent. Parsons v. Board of Education, ante, 88, 156 S. E., 244; Gooch v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 196 N. C., 823, 146 S. E., 803, and cases cited.\nAffirmed.\nBrogdeN, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McLendon & Hedrick and Long & Young for plaintiff.",
      "H. A. Whitfield, A. E. Woltz and Gottis & Gottis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNIE BELL DURHAM v. LUECO LLOYD, Executor of CAROLINE LLOYD et al.\n(Filed 11 March, 1931.)\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., at May Term, 1930, of Orange.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff to defendant\u2019s testatrix, as her companion, nurse and housekeeper, during the last five years of her life. In bar of plaintiff\u2019s recovery defendant relied chiefly on facts alleged in his answer as an estoppel.\nFrom judgment on the verdict sustaining the contentions of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nMcLendon & Hedrick and Long & Young for plaintiff.\nH. A. Whitfield, A. E. Woltz and Gottis & Gottis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0803-01",
  "first_page_order": 871,
  "last_page_order": 871
}