{
  "id": 8628184,
  "name": "J. R. WHITE, Administrator, v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and THE CHARLOTTE PARK COMMISSION",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. City of Charlotte",
  "decision_date": "1935-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "721",
  "last_page": "722",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 721"
    }
  ],
  "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": 170,
    "char_count": 2691,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.671465905023279e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6960243628103414
    },
    "sha256": "6f99a2d2f5f78b91bfcdfc5a611caa4f0a5e4fd1557e55c24210570f8caecd21",
    "simhash": "1:5c93931332b592d9",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. R. WHITE, Administrator, v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and THE CHARLOTTE PARK COMMISSION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nWhen this appeal was called for hearing in this Court, the defendants demurred ore tenus to the complaint, on the ground that the facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This demurrer is sustained.\nIt does not appear from the complaint that the negligence of the defendants, as alleged therein,- was the proximate canse of the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. The negligent construction or operation of the swing in Independence Park by the defendants furnishes no cause of action on which the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the death of his intestate, unless ^such construction or operation was the proximate cause of the death. There are no allegations in the complaint from which it appears that there was a causal connection between the constructon or operation of the swing and the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. For this reason, no cause of action for actionable negligence is alleged in the complaint, and the demurrer ore terms, although first interposed in this Court, must be sustained.\nThe questions of law presented by the written demurrer, and discussed in the briefs filed in this Court, have not been considered. The action is remanded to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, with direction that same be dismissed, unless within apt time the plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint. C. S., 515.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Hewitt for plaintiff.",
      "Bridgers & Orr and W. 8. Blaclceney for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. R. WHITE, Administrator, v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and THE CHARLOTTE PARK COMMISSION.\n(Filed 28 January, 1935.)\n1. Negligence D a\u2014\nWhere it is not alleged in the complaint that the negligence complained of was the proximate cause of the injury in suit, the complaint is subject to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.\n2. Appeal and Error A c\u2014\nWhere a complaint fails to state a cause of action a demurrer ore tenus, although first interposed in the Supreme Court, will be sustained.\n3. Appeal and Error J g\u2014\nWhere a demurrer ore tenus interposed in the Supreme Court is sustained, questions of law presented by appellant\u2019s exception to the overruling of his written demurrers by the lower court need not be considered, and the case will be remanded with direction that it be dismissed, unless in apt time plaintiff moves for leave to amend. C. S., 515.\nAppeal by defendants from Hill, Special Judge, at June Special Term, 1934, of Meoklenbueg-.\nEeversed.\nThis is an action to recover damages fpr the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate\".\nThe defendants demurred in writing to the complaint on the grounds set out in their demurrer. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.\nJohn Hewitt for plaintiff.\nBridgers & Orr and W. 8. Blaclceney for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0721-01",
  "first_page_order": 789,
  "last_page_order": 790
}