{
  "id": 8630843,
  "name": "HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wadford v. Gregory Chandler Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-05-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "802",
  "last_page": "803",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 802"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S. E., 423",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221614
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598741
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S. E., 849",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619504
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2086,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073385359532544
    },
    "sha256": "16c1b328d76c625b996557d03e8d76f0cc16beccec765421a98635eb0af64a90",
    "simhash": "1:8a7beb033288b01c",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of Shapiro v. Winston-Salem, 212 N. C., 751, and Liverman v. Cline, 212 N. C., 43, 192 S. E., 849.\nAffirmed.\nSeawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglass & Douglass, J. M. Broughton, and Fm. U. Yarborough, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Thos. W. Ruffin for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HINES O. WADFORD v. GREGORY CHANDLER COMPANY.\n(Filed 4 May, 1938.)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 21a- \u2014 Evidence held insufficient to support doctrine of respondeat superior.\nDefendant company rented a tractor and driver for work on an E. R. A. project, the truck and driver being under the direction and control of the E. R. A. superintendent. Plaintiff, an employee of the Emergency Relief Administration, instituted this action to recover for injuries inflicted by said truck and driver. Held: Judgment of nonsuit was properly entered on authority of Liverman v. Oline, 212 N. C., 43.\nSea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at January Term, 1938, of WaKe.\nCivil action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant.\nIt is alleged in tbe complaint that the plaintiff was employed by the \u201cNorth Carolina Employment Relief Administration\u201d (Vinson v. O\u2019Berry, 209 N. C., 287, 183 S. E., 423) as truck foreman in charge of the Pullen Park Lake Project; that the defendant corporation rented to said \u201cadministration\u201d a tractor and driver; and that on 13 June, 1935, plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the driver of defendant\u2019s truck.\nIt is in evidence that the \u201cE. R. A. supervisor had full authority to direct the operation of the Gregory Chandler equipment, tell them what to do, when to start to work, how to do it, and where to go. . . . Mr. Matthews, the E. R. A. supervisor, directed the work; gave orders to the foremen. Mr. Gregory wasn\u2019t there\u201d when plaintiff was hurt.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nDouglass & Douglass, J. M. Broughton, and Fm. U. Yarborough, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nThos. W. Ruffin for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0802-02",
  "first_page_order": 866,
  "last_page_order": 867
}