{
  "id": 8619581,
  "name": "MARY J. MALPHURS, Administratrix, v. T. S. ELLINGTON et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Malphurs v. Ellington",
  "decision_date": "1935-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "834",
  "last_page": "835",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 834"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 S. E., 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656651
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1620,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071995317101499
    },
    "sha256": "d30ba5177be4ab06915d257c59e878fe84ed98a6de7d34835d50539c9e64e5c3",
    "simhash": "1:d16be4a5687a93f8",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY J. MALPHURS, Administratrix, v. T. S. ELLINGTON et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CueiaM.\nTbe jury's answer to tbe second issue bars recovery on tbe part of tbe plaintiff. Rimmer v. R. R., ante, 198; Moore v. Iron Works, 183 N. C., 438, 111 S. E., 776. Tbe case on trial narrowed itself largely to controverted issues of fact. Botb were found to be negligent. No reversible error bas been made to appear. While some of tbe illustrations used by tbe judge in bis charge seem a little inapposite, still tbey appear to be without material significance. They could hardly have affected tbe result. S. v. Marshall, ante, 127.\nIn tbe absence of a clearer showing, tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld. It is so ordered.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. D. McCall, G. T. Carswell, and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff.",
      "J. Laurence J ones and Plummer Stewart for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY J. MALPHURS, Administratrix, v. T. S. ELLINGTON et al.\n(Filed 18 September, 1935.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harding, J., at January Special Term, 1935, of Mecklenburg.\nCivil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by tbe neglect, default, or wrongful act of tbe defendant, when tbe cart in which plaintiff\u2019s intestate was riding was struck by an automobile owned by tbe defendant T. S. Ellington, and operated at tbe time by bis son, John Ellington.\nTbe jury returned tbe following verdict:\n\u201c1. Was tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate killed by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, as alleged? A. \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. Did tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis death, as alleged in tbe answer? A. \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u201d\nJudgment on tbe verdict for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nJ. D. McCall, G. T. Carswell, and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff.\nJ. Laurence J ones and Plummer Stewart for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0834-01",
  "first_page_order": 900,
  "last_page_order": 901
}