{
  "id": 8633534,
  "name": "EARL FERGUSON v. REX SPINNING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.",
  "decision_date": "1934-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "911",
  "last_page": "912",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 911"
    }
  ],
  "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": 96,
    "char_count": 912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "sha256": "aaddf506c4b78f9da35376357848be569c57006a12bd87c49b8c821d1d9f93ff",
    "simhash": "1:7d036fc6bb3a4a03",
    "word_count": 157
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EARL FERGUSON v. REX SPINNING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nIn Batson v. Launcky Co., ante, 371, is tbe following: \u201cIn tbe case at bar tbe trial judge beard no evidence and found no facts. Hence, it does not appear whether tbe merits of tbe present case are substantially identical to tbe former case or not. Therefore, tbe Court is of tbe opinion that tbe judgment dismissing tbe action upon tbe plea of estoppel, was prematurely and inadvertently made.\u201d For tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. L. Hamme for plaintiff.",
      "J. Laurence J ones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EARL FERGUSON v. REX SPINNING COMPANY.\n(Filed 2 May, 1934.)\nJudgments L a\u2014\nIn order to sustain a plea of estoppel by judgment in an action instituted after judgment of nonsuit tbe court must find that tbe allegations and evidence in tbe second action are substantially identical with tbe first.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stack, J., at January Term, 1934, of GastoN.\nReversed.\nJ. L. Hamme for plaintiff.\nJ. Laurence J ones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0911-01",
  "first_page_order": 973,
  "last_page_order": 974
}