{
  "id": 8632751,
  "name": "ARTHUR G. MANGUM v. B. E. ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mangum v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1943-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "761",
  "last_page": "762",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 761"
    }
  ],
  "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": 146,
    "char_count": 1601,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "sha256": "6953902fd0fd6960ef48d93daa9b5141853819824abc7037afd740343f83184b",
    "simhash": "1:539f07c38c4fdd79",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARTHUR G. MANGUM v. B. E. ROGERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant\u2019s appeal presents the sole question as to whether there was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury. Since we are of the opinion that the evidence is plenary for this purpose, it follows that the exceptions to the court\u2019s refusal to grant the defendant\u2019s motion for a judgment as in case of nonsuit under the provisions of C. S., 567, cannot be sustained.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s appeal is only from the finding of the jury upon the third issue, which related to the measure of damage fixed at one thousand dollars. We have examined the exceptions set out in the plaintiff\u2019s brief, and are of the opinion that no error prejudicial to the plaintiff was committed either in the rulings of the court upon the admission and exclusion of evidence, or in the charge to the jury.\nSince no new questions are presented on this appeal, it is not deemed necessary or expedient to discuss the exceptions set out in detail.\nIn the trial before the Superior Court we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sharpe, Grimes \u2022& Piliman and Oliver G. Rand for plaintiff.",
      "Royall, Gosney <& Smith for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARTHUR G. MANGUM v. B. E. ROGERS.\n(Filed 24 February, 1943.)\nAppeal by both plaintiff and defendant from Williams, J., at October Term, 1942, of \"Wilson.\nThis was a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted by the defendant upon the plaintiff by driving an automobile upon the plaintiff while on a public highway.\nFrom judgment awarding the plaintiff damages in tbe sum of one thousand dollars both plaintiff and defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nSharpe, Grimes \u2022& Piliman and Oliver G. Rand for plaintiff.\nRoyall, Gosney <& Smith for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0761-02",
  "first_page_order": 805,
  "last_page_order": 806
}