{
  "id": 8618851,
  "name": "M. F. WESTBROOK v. THOMAS WILLIAMS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Westbrook v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1935-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "821",
  "last_page": "821",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 821"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1238,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "sha256": "634e77c36b3ec348d1625f2debfb3eed79fabe87a697656ce16956667ae4a334",
    "simhash": "1:aa684706b8d0a2db",
    "word_count": 218
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. F. WESTBROOK v. THOMAS WILLIAMS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThere is no evidence appearing in tbe record in tbis appeal tending to show tbat tbe mule described in tbe complaint is now or was at tbe commencement of tbis action in tbe possession of tbe defendant Henry Brady, as alleged in tbe complaint. For tbat reason, tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover in tbis action of tbe defendant Henry Brady.\nThere is no error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action as to tbe defendant Henry Brady. Tbe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. F. Watson, Jr., for plaintiff.",
      "Leon G. Stevens for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. F. WESTBROOK v. THOMAS WILLIAMS et al.\n(Filed 20 March, 1935.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barnhill, J., at September Term, 1934, of JohNstoN.\nAffirmed.\nTbis is an action to recover possession of a black mare mule, about ten years old, and for other relief.\nIt is alleged in tbe complaint tbat tbe plaintiff is tbe owner of tbe mule described in tbe complaint and tbat said mule is now in tbe wrongful and unlawful possession of tbe defendant Henry Brady. Tbis allegation is denied in tbe answer.\nAt tbe close of tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff, on motion of tbe defendants, tbe action was dismissed as to tbe defendant Henry Brady by judgment as of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nL. F. Watson, Jr., for plaintiff.\nLeon G. Stevens for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0821-01",
  "first_page_order": 887,
  "last_page_order": 887
}