{
  "id": 8619704,
  "name": "BESSIE PENLAND v. FRENCH BROAD HOSPITAL, Incorporated",
  "name_abbreviation": "Penland v. French Broad Hospital, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1932-12-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "733",
  "last_page": "734",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 733"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 S. E., 406",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599663
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0314-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2911,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072008831402912
    },
    "sha256": "e52d0ba3a32b8e9811d35f1fb056ca192cd7cb55b3104192f3224dbe8596bce3",
    "simhash": "1:9b417d12545dd77d",
    "word_count": 494
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BESSIE PENLAND v. FRENCH BROAD HOSPITAL, Incorporated."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Connor, J.\nThis action was first tried at January Term, 1930, of the Superior Court of Yancey County. From the judgment at said trial, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. This appeal was heard at Spring Term, 1930, of this Court. Defendant\u2019s contention on said appeal that there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit was not considered for the reason that this contention was not duly presented by exceptions taken at the trial. Its contention that there was error in the refusal of the court to instruct the jury in accordance with its request to answer the first issue \u201cNo\u201d was sustained and a new trial ordered. \u00a5e were of opinion that upon all the evidence introduced at the trial, plaintiff was not entitled to recover in this action. Penland v. Hospital, 199 N. C., 314, 154 S. E., 406.\nThis appeal is from the judgment rendered at February Term, 1932, of the Superior Court of Yancey County, dismissing the action as of nonsuit. Plaintiff contends that there was error in the judgment for that the evidence introduced by her was sufficient to show the facts to be as alleged in her complaint, and that this evidence should have been submitted to the jury. The evidence was substantially the same as that offered by the plaintiff at the former trial. For this reason, plaintiff\u2019s contention cannot be sustained. In accordance with the decision on the former appeal, the judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Connor, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Pless, Charles Hutchins, and (?. JD. Bailey for plaintiff.",
      "Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BESSIE PENLAND v. FRENCH BROAD HOSPITAL, Incorporated.\n(Filed 21 December, 1932.)\nAppeal and Error L c \u2014 Judgment in this case is affirmed, the sufficiency of the evidence having been passed upon on former appeal.\nWhere upon a former appeal the Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for error in the trial court\u2019s refusal to direct a verdict in defendant\u2019s favor for the reason that the plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient to entitle her to recover, and upon a subsequent trial the evidence is substantially the same, a judgment as of nonsuit entered upon the second trial will be affirmed on appeal in accordance with the decision on the former appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at February Term, 1932, of YaNcey.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action to recover damages alleged to bave been caused by the negligent performance of an operation on the person of the plaintiff by a surgeon employed by the defendant to perform the operation.\nAll the allegations in the complaint, which constitute the cause of action alleged therein, are denied in the answer.\nAt the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed, and plaintiff duly excepted. C. S., 567.\nFrom judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.\nJ. W. Pless, Charles Hutchins, and (?. JD. Bailey for plaintiff.\nHarkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0733-01",
  "first_page_order": 801,
  "last_page_order": 802
}