{
  "id": 8615579,
  "name": "W. M. HARRELSON v. WILMINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrelson v. Wilmington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "704",
  "last_page": "705",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 704"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S. E., 644",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0721-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20717983944237675
    },
    "sha256": "1fa758b41d508c02aa343645cf44df8a924e938e9a557082c941e7985e66475f",
    "simhash": "1:63402dc732bc163d",
    "word_count": 277
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. M. HARRELSON v. WILMINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee. CubiaM.\nTbe plaintiff did not except to tbe order of tbe trial court, allowing tbe motion of tbe defendant, at tbe close of all tbe evidence, for judgment as of nonsuit. For tbis reason, tbe order is not subject to review by tbis Court.\nTbe only exception in tbe record is to tbe judgment. As there is no error in tbe judgment, it must be affirmed. McCoy v. Trust Co., 204 N. C., 721, 169 S. E., 644, and cases there cited.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee. CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Powell & Lewis for plaintiff.",
      "Tucker & Proctor and Carr, Poisson & James for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. M. HARRELSON v. WILMINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.\n(Filed 1 November, 1935.)\nAppeal and Error P b \u2014 Exception to judgment of nonsuit without exception to court\u2019s order allowing defendant\u2019s motion therefor is insufficient.\nWhere appellant does not except to the court\u2019s order allowing defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence, and the sole exception is to the judgment, the order is not subject to review on appeal, and the judgment will be affirmed when no error appears upon its face.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Grady, J., at November Term, 1934, of OoluMbus.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff and caused, as alleged in the complaint, by the negligence of the defendant.\nAt the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed. The plaintiff did not except to the order allowing the motion. There was judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit.\nThe plaintiff excepted to the judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nPowell & Lewis for plaintiff.\nTucker & Proctor and Carr, Poisson & James for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0704-01",
  "first_page_order": 770,
  "last_page_order": 771
}