{
  "id": 8628582,
  "name": "A. D. HARRELL v. B. G. WILLIS, Trading as ALBEMARLE NAVIGATION COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrell v. Willis",
  "decision_date": "1931-10-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "826",
  "last_page": "827",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 826"
    }
  ],
  "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": 126,
    "char_count": 1290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "sha256": "9286d52cc30927de992e0cce6327d15ac2f73eb7f6d17435f7d50dac89b7e661",
    "simhash": "1:2cec1eb6186cbb7f",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. D. HARRELL v. B. G. WILLIS, Trading as ALBEMARLE NAVIGATION COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nA careful examination of the record and briefs of the parties leads to the conclusion that the ruling of the trial judge was correct.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. Wallace J ones for plaintiff.",
      "W. D. Pruden for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. D. HARRELL v. B. G. WILLIS, Trading as ALBEMARLE NAVIGATION COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 October, 1931.)\nCivil action, before Qraivmer, J., at April Term, 1931, of Hertford.\nThe evidence tended to show that on 4 February, 1929, the defendant entered into an agreement with the Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company to the effect that said defendant would pay one-half of the salary of the station agent and other station forces maintained by said railroad at Tunis, North Carolina. It was further provided that the agreement could be terminated by either party on ninety days written notice. The plaintiff was employed by the railroad company as agent at Tunis, North Carolina. At the trial it was agreed that the trial judge could find the facts and in pursuance of such agreement, the court found that the contract was terminated on 20 March, 1930, and thereupon adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the salary from 1 April, 1930, to 18 June, 1930, it appearing that the plaintiff had been paid to 1 April, 1930.\nFrom the foregoing judgment the defendant appealed.\nG. Wallace J ones for plaintiff.\nW. D. Pruden for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0826-01",
  "first_page_order": 900,
  "last_page_order": 901
}