{
  "id": 8597293,
  "name": "CHESTER R. BULLARD v. MARY BULLARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bullard v. Bullard",
  "decision_date": "1950-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "199",
  "last_page": "200",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 199"
    }
  ],
  "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": 106,
    "char_count": 1247,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "f5e2774302c3b01c7f3a74fe0074f82c4a5ee8ccca4f45963abfc075f10dd893",
    "simhash": "1:c879bf29da000f6d",
    "word_count": 201
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHESTER R. BULLARD v. MARY BULLARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nA careful consideration of the record convinces us that the testimony supports the conclusion reached by the court below, and that its ruling on the motion to vacate the divorce decree ought not to be disturbed. In consequence, the judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frinla & Herring for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Powell & Powell for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHESTER R. BULLARD v. MARY BULLARD.\n(Filed 24 May, 1950.)\nAppeal by defendant from Stevens, J., at September Term, 1949, of Columbus.\nThe marriage of plaintiff and defendant, which occurred 1 October, 1944, was dissolved by a decree of absolute divorce entered in this action at the June Term, 1948, of the Superior Court of Columbus County. The defendant applied to the court at the September Term, 1949, by a motion in the cause for the vacation of the divorce decree on the ground that the plaintiff had practiced fraud upon the court in obtaining the decree. The plaintiff denied this allegation of the defendant. Both parties offered testimony at the hearing of the motion for the avowed purpose of sustaining their respective contentions in the premises. The Court rendered judgment denying the motion to vacate the divorce decree, and the defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nFrinla & Herring for plaintiff, appellee.\nPowell & Powell for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0199-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 248
}