{
  "id": 8632622,
  "name": "A. E. LANIER, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lanier v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "756",
  "last_page": "756",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 756"
    }
  ],
  "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": 118,
    "char_count": 999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "sha256": "d37fef6558199c5320a574ef6b90b165143d656fd1589b9e0f1a4d5839579d5b",
    "simhash": "1:4fc935e46f03ff53",
    "word_count": 164
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. E. LANIER, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nIt does not appear that the plaintiff has been prejudiced by the deletion of certain clauses and allegations from his complaint, even if it be conceded that some of the matters stricken out, while redundant, may not have been irrelevant. C. S., 537. As no harm has come to the plaintiff, the judgment will be upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. Irvin Boyle, G. T. Carswell, and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Bon A. Walser arid Linn <\u00a7 Linn for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. E. LANIER, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. et al.\n(Filed 16 December, 1942.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Olive, Special Judge, at October Term, 1942, of DavidsoN.\nCivil action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death .of plaintiff\u2019s intestate at a railroad crossing.\nIn apt time, and before answering, the defendant moved to strike certain alleged irrelevant or redundant matters from the complaint. The motion was allowed in part and denied in part. From this ruling, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nB. Irvin Boyle, G. T. Carswell, and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellant.\nBon A. Walser arid Linn <\u00a7 Linn for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0756-01",
  "first_page_order": 800,
  "last_page_order": 800
}