{
  "id": 8626313,
  "name": "F. B. INGLE v. LUCRETIA CASSADY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ingle v. Cassady",
  "decision_date": "1937-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "288",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 287"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 S. E., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630472
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S. E., 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S. E., 413",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S. E., 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S. E., 494",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S. E., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611693
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0497-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2270,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.341780223265322e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5137264759451227
    },
    "sha256": "b6bb670d7919ecd756748910363d6eb71da7c9a357422fba63a7cd4e2712961a",
    "simhash": "1:80e94a5ffb6393fd",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. B. INGLE v. LUCRETIA CASSADY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CueiaM.\nThis is the \u201csame candle blown out in the original action,\u201d Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497, 181 S. E., 562, \u201cand lighted again in the present action.\u201d C. S., 415; Loan Co. v. Warren, 204 N. C., 50, 167 S. E., 494; Motsinger v. Hauser, 195 N. C., 483, 142 S. E., 589.\nAs the facts found by the trial court are supported by the record, Batson v. Laundry Co., 209 N. C., 223, 183 S. E., 413, the judgment will be affirmed on authority of Hampton v. Spinning Co., 198 N. C., 235, 151 S. E., 266, where it was said tbat \u201cif upon the trial of the new action, upon its merits, ... it appears to the trial court, and is found by such court as a fact, tbat the second suit is based upon substantially identical allegation and substantially identical evidence, and tbat the merits of the second cause are identically the same, thereupon the trial court should bold tbat the judgment in the first action was a bar or res adjudicata, and thus end that particular litigation.\u201d The same rule was restated and followed in Batson v. Laundry Co., 206 N. C., 371, 174 S. E., 90.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ford, Goxe \u2022& Garter for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Harlcins, Yan Winlcle & Walton for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. B. INGLE v. LUCRETIA CASSADY.\n(Filed 24 February, 1937.)\nJudgments \u00a7 38\u2014\nWhere the record supports the findings of the court that the allegations and evidence are substantially identical with those of a prior action non-suited, and that the merits of the two causes are identical, judgment that the prior action constituted res a&ju&ieata, and dismissing the second action is proper. G. S., 415.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., at November Term, 1936, of BUNCOMBE.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.\nAfter bearing tbe evidence, tbe trial court found as a fact \u201ctbat tbe instant suit between tbe parties hereto is based substantially on identical allegations and substantially identical evidence as in tbe former case between tbe same parties hereto . . . tbat tbe merits of this cause of action are in substance and identically tbe same as in tbe former action,\u201d and thereupon held tbat tbe plaintiff was estopped to prosecute tbe present action by tbe judgment in tbe former suit, and dismissed tbe same.\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nFord, Goxe \u2022& Garter for plaintiff, appellant.\nHarlcins, Yan Winlcle & Walton for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 354
}