{
  "id": 8631527,
  "name": "JAMES F. ORREN v. IOWA MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Orren v. Iowa Mutual Liability Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1949-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 618"
    }
  ],
  "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": 133,
    "char_count": 1665,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5444166822081133
    },
    "sha256": "65dfac144aac377f20373673c51285e47574bb93018e8c8d5aca7ee4e4da002c",
    "simhash": "1:149b06124a6d96ff",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES F. ORREN v. IOWA MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe determinate question at issue herein is as to whether tbe diamond ring was possessed by plaintiff or a member of bis family for personal use or as a business asset held for sale. If a business .asset, its loss by tbeft was not insured. Tbe findings and conclusion of tbe judge in respect thereto were adverse to plaintiff. They are fully .sustained by tbe record. Hence tbe judgment entered must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scurry & McMichael for \u25a0plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Welch Jordan for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES F. ORREN v. IOWA MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 21 September, 1949.)\nInsurance \u00a7 60\u2014\nThe findings of the trial court that the diamond ring in question was property pertaining to the business or profession of insured and was also an article carried or held for sale, or for delivery after sale, by insured, held sustained by the record and to support judgment that its loss by theft was not covered by a residence and outside theft policy.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at May Term, 1949, of RockiNg-ham.\nAffirmed.\nCivil action to recover on a residence and outside tbeft policy.\nTbe parties waived trial by jury and agreed that tbe judge should find tbe facts and render judgment upon tbe facts found. They then stipulated all tbe evidentiary facts, leaving only tbe ultimate fact or conclusion for tbe judge to determine. Tbe judge thereupon found and concluded that tbe diamond ring in question was \u201cproperty pertaining to tbe business or profession of tbe plaintiff and was also an article carried or held for sale or for delivery after sale by tbe plaintiff\u201d and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nScurry & McMichael for \u25a0plaintiff, appellant.\nWelch Jordan for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 675
}
