{
  "id": 8632581,
  "name": "FURMAN WISHON v. GASTONIA WEAVING COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wishon v. Gastonia Weaving Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-11-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "754",
  "last_page": "754",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 754"
    }
  ],
  "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": 90,
    "char_count": 841,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "sha256": "109fa11f9dbd29bd8577c7417794a190c61a05abbf6644e5d57e87708a26b046",
    "simhash": "1:c3b1826a89109d9a",
    "word_count": 134
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FURMAN WISHON v. GASTONIA WEAVING COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb Cubiam.\nAn examination of the complaint, in connection with the contract which is attached to and made a part of the complaint, fails to reveal any agreement to pay the plaintiff the amount of wages he now claims. Hence, the demurrer was properly sustained.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. L. Hamme for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Cherry & Hollowell for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FURMAN WISHON v. GASTONIA WEAVING COMPANY, INC.\n(Filed 25 November, 1942.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at March Term, 1942, of Gaston.\nAffirmed.\nThis was an action to recover balance due for work performed in defendant\u2019s mill under the contract alleged in the complaint. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground, among others, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and plaintiff appealed.\nJ. L. Hamme for plaintiff, appellant.\nCherry & Hollowell for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0754-01",
  "first_page_order": 798,
  "last_page_order": 798
}