{
  "id": 8626711,
  "name": "J. B. RITTER v. HIGH FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ritter v. High Falls Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1931-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "807",
  "last_page": "808",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 807"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 N. C., 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629758
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630089,
        8630071
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0810-02",
        "/nc/196/0810-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630360
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0549-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1741,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20726768240156088
    },
    "sha256": "1b0fb3f565ad663d374335fc9d64ac232665f2ff865019af76f755529c67869f",
    "simhash": "1:4ab5e1a8be5c8460",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. B. RITTER v. HIGH FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oubiam.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence defendant made motions in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below overruled these motions, and in this we can see no error.\nWe tbink tbe evidence sufficient to- be submitted to tbe jury on tbe questions of negligence and contributory negligence. Boswell v. Hosiery Mills, 191 N. C., 549; Mahaffey v. Furniture Lines, 196 N. C., 810.\nAs to tbe evidence of fraud in procuring tbe release, we tbink it also sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury. Butler v. Fertilizer Works, 195 N. C., 409. In law we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. F. Seawell & Son and J. O. Benegaf for plaintiff.",
      "A. A. F. Seawell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. B. RITTER v. HIGH FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 May, 1931.)\nAppeal by defendant from McElroy, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1930, of Mooee.\nNo error.\nThis is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendant alleging damage. The defendant denied negligence, set up the plea of contributory negligence and a release. Plaintiff contended the release was procured by fraud.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto, were as follows:\n\u201c1. Was said paper-writing, purporting to be a release, dated 25 September, 1926, procured by misrepresentation and fraud, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n3. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his said injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.\n4. What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: $900 in addition to what plaintiff has already received.\u201d\nII. F. Seawell & Son and J. O. Benegaf for plaintiff.\nA. A. F. Seawell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0807-01",
  "first_page_order": 875,
  "last_page_order": 876
}