{
  "id": 8632246,
  "name": "Z. R. BRADSHAW and IDA E. BRADSHAW, His Wife, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bradshaw v. Tidewater Power Co.",
  "decision_date": "1934-01-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "850",
  "last_page": "851",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 N.C. 850"
    }
  ],
  "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": 185,
    "char_count": 2295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4732246937948892
    },
    "sha256": "baa233b0391879cf10bc88bb821a2f42cc0a6f80d79d027ad3b89336dbbc7294",
    "simhash": "1:3b40379db9402025",
    "word_count": 387
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:31.066060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Z. R. BRADSHAW and IDA E. BRADSHAW, His Wife, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe merit of this cause is determined by the opinion in the case of Merritt v. Power Co., ante, 259. The decision in tbe Merritt case was filed in October, 1933, and was, therefore, not available to the parties at the time this action was tried.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Geo. R. Ward for plaintiffs.",
      "Beasley & Stevens and L. J. Poisson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Z. R. BRADSHAW and IDA E. BRADSHAW, His Wife, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY.\n(Filed 24 January, 1934.)\nCivil actioN, before Harris, J., at March Term, 1933, of DupliN.\nThe board of education of Duplin County owned a building known as the teacherage. The plaintiffs leased the building from the county and moved into the house on or about 30 December, 1921. The building was operated by the plaintiffs as a boarding house for teachers. When the building was completed the same was wired by the defendant and this work was finished on or about the time the plaintiffs took possession. After the first of January, 1928, the defendant furnished current for the building continuously from said date until about 6 September, 1928, when the building was destroyed by fire.\nPlaintiffs allege that they lost certain personal property in the fire and in addition, sustained a loss of profits through inability to operate the teacherage. An action for damages was brought in June, 1929, and-in the complaint filed the plaintiffs alleged that the wiring was improperly and negligently done, and that such negligence was the cause of the fire. After hearing the evidence Special Judge Moore, nonsuited the cause and thereafter the present suit was instituted on or about 1 September, 1931. At tbe close of tbe evidence tbe trial judge nonsuited tbe action upon tbe ground tbat tbe plaintiff bad failed to make out a case against tbe defendant and upon tbe further ground tbat tbe court found as a fact \u201ctbat tbis action is between tbe same parties upon tbe same cause of action and involves tbe same issues as tbe motion heretofore tried before Special Judge Clayton Moore, and tbat it appeared from tbis trial of tbe action tbat tbis suit is based upon substantially identical allegations and substantially identical evidence, and tbat tbe merits of tbe second issue are identically tbe same as tbe first cause,\u201d etc.\nFrom judgment rendered plaintiffs appealed.\nGeo. R. Ward for plaintiffs.\nBeasley & Stevens and L. J. Poisson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0850-01",
  "first_page_order": 914,
  "last_page_order": 915
}