{
  "id": 8628381,
  "name": "MAYSO POWELL et al. v. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. Armour Fertilizer Works",
  "decision_date": "1933-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "311",
  "last_page": "311",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 N.C. 311"
    }
  ],
  "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": "97 S. E., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 S. E., 103",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N. C., 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0042-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1274,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333493452170769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6295121839149695
    },
    "sha256": "099384cbfaefe164aee9c6bacdda284fe088f398a6a027869f427ba14589dc75",
    "simhash": "1:12a1db61e27739c3",
    "word_count": 230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:31.066060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MAYSO POWELL et al. v. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CueiaM.\nThe judgment of tbe Superior Court is supported by tbe facts upon which it is agreed 'the rights of tbe parties depend.\nThe note and deed of trust were executed by tbe guardian pursuant to order of the clerk of tbe Superior Court, and before same was approved by tbe judge as required by C. S., 2180, but tbe judge\u2019s approval was later entered nunc pro tunc. This cured tbe defect. Campbell v. Farley, 158 N. C., 42, 73 S. E., 103. Compare Mann v. Mann, 176 N. C., 353, 97 S. E., 175.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. 0. Dickens, M. S. Strickland and Finch, Rancl & Finch for plaintiffs.",
      "Cooley & Bone for defendant, Fertilizer Works."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MAYSO POWELL et al. v. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS et al.\n(Filed 11 October, 1933.)\nGuardian and Ward O b\u2014\nA guardian executed a note and deed of trust under an order made by tbe clerk without the approval of the judge. The judge later approved the order nunc pro tunc. Held, the defect was cured. O. S., 2180.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Barnhill, J., at Chambers, Eocky Mount, 18 March, 1933. From Nash.\nCivil action by wards to have note and deed of trust signed by their guardian, under order of court, approved by tbe judge nunc pro tunc, declared null and void, beard upon facts agreed, which resulted in judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs appeal.\nA. 0. Dickens, M. S. Strickland and Finch, Rancl & Finch for plaintiffs.\nCooley & Bone for defendant, Fertilizer Works."
  },
  "file_name": "0311-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 375
}