{
  "id": 8629221,
  "name": "RIGO MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. B. D. PRIDGEN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen",
  "decision_date": "1939-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "247",
  "last_page": "248",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 247"
    }
  ],
  "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": "86 S. E., 624",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N. C., 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661418
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S. E., 710",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656399
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2175,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20731285878056982
    },
    "sha256": "4f3731cca2071491b7daed24fac91444903dd048084d51770003221fb56f0fc6",
    "simhash": "1:021541c36851c33e",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RIGO MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. B. D. PRIDGEN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuRiAM.\nAs plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of notice set out in each hill of lading and designated \u201cas a condition precedent to recovery,\u201d its action against the carrier was properly dismissed. St. Sing v. Express Co., 183 N. C., 405, 111 S. E., 710; Culbreth v. R. R., 169 N. C., 723, 86 S. E., 624.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Hill and Connor & Connor for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "F. S. Spruill, W. A. Townes, and Finch, Rand & Finch for defendant A. C. L. Railroad Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RIGO MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. B. D. PRIDGEN et al.\n(Filed 8 March, 1939.)\nCarriers \u00a7 10\u2014\nAn action against a carrier by the consignor to recover the value of certain shipments of goods rejected by the consignee is properly dismissed when instituted without any prior notice or claim of loss having been filed with the carrier as required by the bill of lading as a condition precedent.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at November Term, 1938, of WILSON.\nCivil action by consignor to recover of consignee and delivering carrier $181.73 value of three interstate shipments of goods.\nOn 8 March, 1935, on 5 September, 1935, and again on 3 February, 1936, tbe plaintiff delivered to tbe Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Eailway Company at Nashville, Tenn., a shipment of goods consigned to B. D. Pridgen, Wilson, N. C., taking therefor on each occasion a uniform straight bill of lading.\nThere is evidence tending to show tbat tbe delivering carrier tendered tbe goods to tbe consignee, who rejected them, and tbe record is silent as to what became of tbe shipment.\nThis action was instituted 7 September, 1937, without any prior notice or claim of loss having been filed with tbe Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company, as required by tbe bills of lading.\nIn the court of first instance, tbe plaintiff was awarded judgment against tbe carrier and a nonsuit entered in favor of tbe consignee.\nFrom tbis judgment, the carrier appealed to the Superior Court, where \u201ca voluntary nonsuit was taken as to B. D. Pridgen,\u201d and the court sustained a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit in favor of the A. C. L. Railroad Company.\nProm this latter judgment, the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nB. M. Hill and Connor & Connor for plaintiff, appellant.\nF. S. Spruill, W. A. Townes, and Finch, Rand & Finch for defendant A. C. L. Railroad Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0247-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 314
}