{
  "id": 8624883,
  "name": "MARIE BARRETT v. JOHN T. WILLIAMS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barrett v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1940-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "775",
  "last_page": "776",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 775"
    }
  ],
  "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": "217 N. C., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1086,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072400746143887
    },
    "sha256": "a27a076b90cd9f0c1c3bc08810bb3e0b7ee3b788d3d4299160e99447f510152b",
    "simhash": "1:d559c1ae457516ff",
    "word_count": 182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARIE BARRETT v. JOHN T. WILLIAMS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nThis is the same case that was before us on defendants\u2019 appeal at the Spring Term, 1939, reported in 215 N. C., 131, 1 S. E. (2d), 366, and again on plaintiff\u2019s appeal at the Spring Term, 1940, reported in 217 N. C., 175, 7 S. E. (2d), 383, new trials having been granted on the two former appeals, and is now before us on plaintiff\u2019s second appeal.\nA careful perusal of the record engenders the conclusion that the controverted matters have been tried in substantial conformity to the opinions heretofore rendered in the case. No sufficient reason has been advanced for disturbing the result appearing on the present record.\nThe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMullan & McMullan for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "M. B. Simpson and John H. Hall for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARIE BARRETT v. JOHN T. WILLIAMS et al.\n(Filed 18 September, 1940.)\nAppeal by defendants from Burney, J., at June Term, 1940, of Pasquotank.\nCivil action in ejectment and for redemption and accounting.\nFrom verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.\nMcMullan & McMullan for plaintiff, appellee.\nM. B. Simpson and John H. Hall for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0775-02",
  "first_page_order": 843,
  "last_page_order": 844
}