{
  "id": 8629432,
  "name": "SMITH GARRETT v. HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garrett v. Holland Furnace Co.",
  "decision_date": "1937-06-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "746",
  "last_page": "746",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 746"
    }
  ],
  "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": 122,
    "char_count": 1167,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "sha256": "4127106c2c00c5624267e6202b13350f446ced1c2ddbfa04ba0276b286c9b52a",
    "simhash": "1:b31ac8fcaa34336b",
    "word_count": 187
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SMITH GARRETT v. HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nThe record discloses no fatal exceptive assignment of error. The allegation of negligence is, perhaps, narrowly stated, but its sufficiency is not challenged. Indeed, the theory of the trial may have been more favorable to the defendant than the facts in evidence warranted. However, the jury has answered for the plaintiff. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams \u25a0& Bright for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "William H. Boyer for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SMITH GARRETT v. HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 9 June, 1937.)\nAppeal by defendant from Hill, Special Judge, at March Term, 1937, of Foesttii.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendant.\nPlaintiff was injured while riding on defendant\u2019s truck, and was, at the time, engaged in helping defendant\u2019s driver move a Heatrola from the home of a customer to defendant\u2019s store, for the purpose of storing it.\nThe jury found that plaintiff\u2019s injury was due to the negligence of the defendant and assessed his damages at $500. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nWilliams \u25a0& Bright for plaintiff, appellee.\nWilliam H. Boyer for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0746-01",
  "first_page_order": 812,
  "last_page_order": 812
}