{
  "id": 8605094,
  "name": "S. J. ODOM and Wife, BLANCHE B. ODOM, v. S. & W. RENDERING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Odom v. S. & W. Rendering Co.",
  "decision_date": "1953-09-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "238 N.C. 263"
    }
  ],
  "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": 980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "sha256": "cfa008eaca681d209a59cd22c1b5926a0b8e41a45c37f2adf2392571734f96db",
    "simhash": "1:ba928317d5863fb0",
    "word_count": 155
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:50.226870+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. J. ODOM and Wife, BLANCHE B. ODOM, v. S. & W. RENDERING COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe facts alleged in defendant\u2019s further answer which were stricken by the order entered in the court below constitute no valid defense. They are wholly extraneous and irrelevant. If the defendant has any affirmative defense or relevant new matter it desires to plead, it is fully protected in this respect by the order granting leave to amend.\nThe order entered in the court below must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "0. B. Mo.ss for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Cooley & May for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. J. ODOM and Wife, BLANCHE B. ODOM, v. S. & W. RENDERING COMPANY\n(Filed 23 September, 1953.)\nAppeal by defendant from Parker (Joseph W.\\ J., April Term, 1953, Nash. Affirmed.\nCivil action to abate a nuisance and to recover compensation for alleged damages to plaintiffs\u2019 real property proximately resulting from tbe maintenance thereof, beard on motion to strike allegations contained in defendant\u2019s \u201cfurther answer and defense.\u201d The motion was allowed and defendant excepted and appealed.\n0. B. Mo.ss for plaintiff appellees.\nCooley & May for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 313
}