{
  "id": 8629673,
  "name": "MRS. CLAUDIA HEWITT v. JOHN URICH; and A. J. HEWITT v. JOHN URICH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hewitt v. Urich",
  "decision_date": "1936-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "835",
  "last_page": "836",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 835"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N. C., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596708
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628208
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 827",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0827-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655616
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606640
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0449-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1622,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.495734158945915e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48637758417575694
    },
    "sha256": "378d1d337bec7f8fe4b28e6de5cabe82951cfcef3178ca739fecabb25c852575",
    "simhash": "1:5800d64ccc08e6d9",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. CLAUDIA HEWITT v. JOHN URICH and A. J. HEWITT v. JOHN URICH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was no error in consolidating the two actions for trial. Fleming v. Holleman, 190 N. C., 449; Ins. Co. v. R. R., 179 N. C., 255. Nor can the exceptions to the judge\u2019s charge be sustained. The instructions to the jury relative to the speed of the automobile were in accord with the decisions of this Court in S. v. Webber, ante, 137, and S. v. Spencer, 209 N. C., 827. The charge of the court as to the skidding of an automobile was free from error (Springs v. Doll, 197 N. C., 240; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N. C., 117), and the rule applicable to sudden emergencies was properly stated. Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., 266.\nIssues of fact were raised and these have been decided by the jury against the plaintiffs. In the trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. R. Chambers for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "Wmborne & Proctor for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. CLAUDIA HEWITT v. JOHN URICH and A. J. HEWITT v. JOHN URICH.\n(Filed 14 October, 1936.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Bless, J., at February Term, 1936, of McDowell.\nNo error.\nSeparate actions were instituted by the plaintiffs for damages alleged to have been caused each of them by the negligence of the defendant in tbe operation of an automobile in wbicb they were riding as defendant\u2019s guests. There were allegations that tbe defendant drove at an excessive speed over pavement rendered slick by rain, causing tbe car to skid and overturn down an embankment. Two suits were, for convenience, consolidated for trial. Tbe jury answered tbe issues of negligence in favor of tbe defendant, and from judgment on tbe verdict plaintiffs appealed.\nW. R. Chambers for plaintiffs, appellants.\nWmborne & Proctor for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0835-01",
  "first_page_order": 901,
  "last_page_order": 902
}