{
  "id": 8615671,
  "name": "HENRY A. SMITH v. JIM STEEN and CARRY STEEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Steen",
  "decision_date": "1945-11-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "644",
  "last_page": "645",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. 644"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 S. E., 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652709
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 719",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0719-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.815610344712739e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4577793917714894
    },
    "sha256": "26dbed139ee23487d6ea9a7fbcc3d62d25a557a23bc1edc90d9a3ad92c0d8d14",
    "simhash": "1:be8e248d34d88f30",
    "word_count": 402
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:44.450219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY A. SMITH v. JIM STEEN and CARRY STEEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe determinative issue of fact raised by the pleadings, and upon which the contest was waged, has been by the jury decided in favor of the defendants. The only assignments of error brought forward by the plaintiff in his appeal relate to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury. An examination of the charge as a whole in the light of the criticism noted, however, leads us to the conclusion that no prejudicial error is shown, which should require upsetting the verdict and judgment and awarding a new trial. \u201cThe burden is on the appellant not only to show error but to enable the court to see that he was prejudiced or the verdict of the jury probably influenced thereby.\u201d Collins v. Lamb, 215 N. C., 719, 2 S. E. (2d), 863; Wilson v. Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 56, 118 S. E., 797.\nThe case at bar involved controverted questions of fact which seem to have been fairly presented. The triers of the facts have accepted the defendants\u2019 version. The result will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. A. Reaves and George S. Steele, Jr., for plaintiff.",
      "Z. V. Morgan for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY A. SMITH v. JIM STEEN and CARRY STEEN.\n(Filed 28 November, 1945.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 37a\u2014\nThe burden is on the appellant, not only to show error, but to enable the court to see that he was prejudiced or the verdict of the jury probably influenced thereby.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Olive, Special Judge, at May Term, 1945, of RiciimoNd. No error.\nAction for damages for wrongful eviction from leased premises. Plaintiff alleged that on account of threats of physical violence by defendant Jim Steen, and his wrongfully cutting the electric wires, plaintiff was forced to vacate a dwelling house which he had leased from the defendants; that due to the wrongful conduct of defendants he was badly frightened and suffered injury to his electrical appliances. Plaintiff alleged substantial damage, both compensatory and punitive.\nDefendants, answering, denied making the threats complained of, and alleged that the cutting of the electric wires was caused by plaintiff\u2019s improper use of electricity in violation of contract.\nThe following issue was submitted to the jury: \u201cDid the defendant Jim Steen wrongfully evict the plaintiff from the house he had rented ?\u201d The jury answered the issue \u201cNo.\u201d Other issues were not answered.\nFrom judgment for defendants on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.\nA. A. Reaves and George S. Steele, Jr., for plaintiff.\nZ. V. Morgan for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0644-01",
  "first_page_order": 692,
  "last_page_order": 693
}