{
  "id": 8620509,
  "name": "In re Will of JAMES TURNAGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Will of Turnage",
  "decision_date": "1935-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "848",
  "last_page": "848",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 848"
    }
  ],
  "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": 118,
    "char_count": 1453,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "sha256": "44b938d39d8f18b4208b48c1f21c518dc7321e2fa7d9f99e5fff28468c658c05",
    "simhash": "1:a76e4780da68c0fd",
    "word_count": 251
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Will of JAMES TURNAGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOaveator is without substantial ground for complaint. He has had two bites at the cherry, and his Honor was justified in interpreting our opinion as he did.\nTie verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Brown for caveator.",
      "Sam Worthington and J. B. James for propomiders."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Will of JAMES TURNAGE.\n(Filed 1 November, 1935.)\nAppeal by caveator from Small, J., at August Term, 1935, of Pitt.\nIssue of devisavit vel non raised by a caveat to the will of James Turnage, late of Pitt County, and based upon alleged mental incapacity and undue influence.\nTie issue was originally tried at tie September Term, 1934, and resulted in a verdict for the propounders on tie issue of mental capacity and for the caveator on the issue of undue influence.\nOn appeal the exceptions addressed to tie issue of mental capacity were dismissed as cured by the verdict, and a new trial ordered for failure to direct a verdict in favor of the propounders on the issue of undue influence. In re Will of Turnage, ante, 130.\nOn the present hearing, the evidence being practically the same on the issue of undue influence as it was at the first trial, tie court directed a verdict for the propounder in accordance with the opinion rendered on the first appeal, and declined to resubmit the issue of alleged mental incapacity, interpreting our opinion as limiting the new trial to the issue of undue influence. Objection; exception; apjieal by caveator.\nJulius Brown for caveator.\nSam Worthington and J. B. James for propomiders."
  },
  "file_name": "0848-01",
  "first_page_order": 914,
  "last_page_order": 914
}