{
  "id": 8632126,
  "name": "GEORGE W. MORDECAI, FRANK E. MORDECAI and SAMUEL F. MORDECAI, Co-partners Trading as HAYES-BARTON SWIMMING POOL, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mordecai v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1950-04-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "733",
  "last_page": "734",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "231 N.C. 733"
    }
  ],
  "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": 152,
    "char_count": 1586,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "sha256": "383a85c5b81906d379b4923c16bdb241bd2c3fdc6854d0f298f2290af3861ed1",
    "simhash": "1:426a5b5e339ee945",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:15.383158+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE W. MORDECAI, FRANK E. MORDECAI and SAMUEL F. MORDECAI, Co-partners Trading as HAYES-BARTON SWIMMING POOL, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiffs noted numerous exceptions to the judge\u2019s charge, but a careful examination of the record leaves us with the impression that the case was fairly submitted to the jury, and that no error which would warrant us in awarding a new trial has been disclosed. We are not inclined to disturb the result.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cheshire & Ellis for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "Simms & Simms for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE W. MORDECAI, FRANK E. MORDECAI and SAMUEL F. MORDECAI, Co-partners Trading as HAYES-BARTON SWIMMING POOL, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 19 April, 1950.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Grady, Emergency Judge, November Term, 1949, of Wake. No error.\nPlaintiffs instituted this action to recover damages for injury to their property by water alleged to have resulted from the negligent construction and maintenance by the defendant of a culvert and drainway under its roadbed, insufficient to carry off the waters flowing through a small stream when swollen by rain. It was alleged that following heavy rains water was backed up over plaintiffs\u2019 land causing substantial damage. Defendant denied negligence and further alleged that any injury suffered by plaintiffs was caused by an unprecedented and unpredictable downpour, constituting an act of God for which defendant was not liable.\nThe following issue was submitted to the jury: \u201cWere the lands of the plaintiffs flooded and their property injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?\u201d The jury answered the issue \u201cNo,\u201d and from judgment on the verdict, the plaintiffs appealed.\nCheshire & Ellis for plaintiffs, appellants.\nSimms & Simms for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0733-01",
  "first_page_order": 783,
  "last_page_order": 784
}