{
  "id": 8623393,
  "name": "BENJAMIN GERKS v. HARRY WEINSTEIN; and C. N. HINER v. HARRY WEINSTEIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gerks v. Weinstein",
  "decision_date": "1936-04-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "90",
  "last_page": "91",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 90"
    }
  ],
  "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": 126,
    "char_count": 1463,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "sha256": "8cbf6cac16dd118f2761f61e3f7342e7bf40c3133106c63bf630715fddd82bb9",
    "simhash": "1:f6cc40e2f79b3205",
    "word_count": 260
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BENJAMIN GERKS v. HARRY WEINSTEIN and C. N. HINER v. HARRY WEINSTEIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn the absence of any evidence at the hearing tending to show that the property on which the sheriff has levied is the same property as that described in the chattel mortgage, there was no error in the order denying the motion.\nThe motion was not supported by affidavit or other proof that the movant has any interest in or title to the property on which the sheriff had levied. The movant failed to show that she had a right to intervene, and for that reason the order denying her motion is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Little & Wilson for plaintiffs.",
      "A. B. Breece for movant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BENJAMIN GERKS v. HARRY WEINSTEIN and C. N. HINER v. HARRY WEINSTEIN.\n(Filed 29 April, 1936.)\nParties A c\u2014\nA motion by a party to be allowed to intervene and claim tbe property involved in the action is correctly denied where movant fails to identify the property claimed by her as the property in suit.\nAppeal by Emma Mayer, movant, from Barnhill, J., at February Term, 1936, of \"Waice.\nAffirmed.\nThe above entitled causes were consolidated in the Superior Court for tbe purpose of bearing the motion, of Emma Mayer that she be allowed to intervene in each of said causes, and to set up therein her claim under a chattel mortgage to certain personal property on which the sheriff of Wake County had levied under an execution issued to him on the judgment against the defendant in each cause.\nThe motion was denied, and Emma Mayer, the movant, appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.\nLittle & Wilson for plaintiffs.\nA. B. Breece for movant."
  },
  "file_name": "0090-01",
  "first_page_order": 156,
  "last_page_order": 157
}