{
  "id": 8630204,
  "name": "W. H. WRIGHT v. MUTUAL COTTON MILLS COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Mutual Cotton Mills Co.",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "859",
  "last_page": "860",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 859"
    }
  ],
  "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": "157 S. E., 11",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621866
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 756",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0756-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20733177880254794
    },
    "sha256": "599738c6bc8bb8b3324f22ac8d3dffdf19d0d78f61bf2238f57b95efee83bb9d",
    "simhash": "1:b4e784e71d92d3db",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. WRIGHT v. MUTUAL COTTON MILLS COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is supported by Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co., 194 N. C., 756, 140 S. E., 744; Salter v. Gordon, 200 N. C., 381, 157 S. E., 11; Williams v. Osage Mfg. Co., ante, 859.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. L. Hamme for plaintiff.",
      "Geo. B. Mason, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. WRIGHT v. MUTUAL COTTON MILLS COMPANY.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nCivil action, before Schenclc, J. ', at December Term, 1931, of Gaston.\nThe plaintiff alleged that defendant is the owner and operator of a cotton mill, and as an incident to said business, owns certain tenement houses for the use of its employees. That the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and rented one of said houses for the use of himself and family, paying as rental the sum of sixty cents per week. It was further alleged that on or about the first day of January, 1930, the house burned, destroying the household furniture and other personal effects of plaintiff.\nTbe evidence tended to show that the defendants furnished light for the houses owned by it, including that rented by the plaintiff. On the night before the fire one of the lights in the house would not burn. On the next day the plaintiff reported the matter to the agent of defendant, who promised to make the necessary repairs. This was about twelve o\u2019clock in the day. The house burned about four o\u2019clock -in the afternoon of\u2019 that day. A witness said: \u201cThe fire seemed to be burning through the roof in a streak two feet wide where the electric wire went in.\u201d The light that was out of repair was in the front room of the house.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence there was judgment of non-suit and he appealed.\nJ. L. Hamme for plaintiff.\nGeo. B. Mason, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0859-02",
  "first_page_order": 925,
  "last_page_order": 926
}