{
  "id": 11310035,
  "name": "FLORENCE WIGGINS and Husband, J. R. WIGGINS, v. ROBERT LUCAS, GUS Z. LANCASTER and PLANTERS COTTON OIL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wiggins v. Lucas",
  "decision_date": "1941-09-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "816",
  "last_page": "816",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. 816"
    }
  ],
  "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": 140,
    "char_count": 1469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "sha256": "c409061346f845684092d68e6f3aa9b1913a592c6313d5825b26d5c9fbf0df6a",
    "simhash": "1:62d3358c141d90d9",
    "word_count": 233
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FLORENCE WIGGINS and Husband, J. R. WIGGINS, v. ROBERT LUCAS, GUS Z. LANCASTER and PLANTERS COTTON OIL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee. OuRiam.\nThe plaintiffs in this action, as landlords of the defendant Lucas, brought action to recover an amount alleged to be due for rents and advances alleged to have been made in the cultivation of the crop, and, in enforcement of the landlord\u2019s lien, sued out a proceeding of claim and delivery for portions of the crop alleged to be in the possession of defendant and his codefendants. The defendant Lucas denied that there was anything due on plaintiffs\u2019 claim, and set up a counterclaim for damages sustained through plaintiffs\u2019 breach of the rental contract, in not furnishing fertilizers, and facilities for producing and conserving the crop. Appropriate issues were submitted to the jury, which were answered favorably to defendant\u2019s contention, judgment thereupon ensued, and plaintiffs appealed.\nThe case presents no novel propositions of law, the discussion of which in an extended opinion might be helpful, and it is sufficient to say that careful examination discloses no reason why the result of the trial should be disturbed. We find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee. OuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Keel & Keel for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "Chas. 0. Pierce for defendants, appellees.",
      "J. L. Simmons for defendant Lancaster."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FLORENCE WIGGINS and Husband, J. R. WIGGINS, v. ROBERT LUCAS, GUS Z. LANCASTER and PLANTERS COTTON OIL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY.\n(Filed 17 September, 1941.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs, Florence Wiggins and husband, J. R. Wiggins, from Harris, Jat April Term, 1941, of Edgecombe.\nNo error.\nKeel & Keel for plaintiffs, appellants.\nChas. 0. Pierce for defendants, appellees.\nJ. L. Simmons for defendant Lancaster."
  },
  "file_name": "0816-01",
  "first_page_order": 860,
  "last_page_order": 860
}