{
  "id": 8619593,
  "name": "ELIZABETH WHITESIDE v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and W. JACK FAIRCLOTH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whiteside v. Ralston Purina Co.",
  "decision_date": "1955-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 N.C. 591"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 S.E. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N.C. 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 343",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628290
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0678-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628310
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 S.E. 2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 556"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.809691169799155e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4966486463110398
    },
    "sha256": "f6edc7b56f9ede1c7f6c9695e53a46ba8aa5420b8de6f4c5b13f257178346dba",
    "simhash": "1:7733fd3e682f8e46",
    "word_count": 467
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:17.837681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WinboRNe and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH WHITESIDE v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and W. JACK FAIRCLOTH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHNSON, J.\nPractically all the evidence in the case is by question and answer, and not in narrative form as required by Rule 19 (4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, p. 556.\nThis Rule provides that the evidence \u201cshall be in narrative form, and not by question and answer, except that a question and answer, or a series of them, may be set out when the subj ect of a particular exception.\u201d Here the instances in which the question and answer form is necessary to point up an exception are nebulous. The Rule further provides that \u201cIf the case is settled by agreement of counsel, or the statement of the appellant becomes the case on appeal, and the rule is not complied with, . . . the appeal will be dismissed.\u201d Here the case was settled by agreement of counsel.\n' The defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to narrate the evidence will be allowed. It is so ordered. For the reasons stated in Anderson v. Heating Co., 238 N.C. 138, 76 S.E. 2d 458, the Court has not only found it necessary to adopt Rule 19 (4), but also to enforce it uniformly. The profession has been apprised of the mandatory character of the Rule in recent decisions of the Court. S. v. McNeill, 239 N.C. 679, 80 S.E. 2d 680; Laughinghouse v. Insurance Co., 239 N.C. 678, 80 S.E. 2d 457; S. v. Powell, 238 N.C. 550, 78 S.E. 2d 343; Anderson v. Heating Co., supra. See also Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126.\nIn accordance with our decisions, the judgment will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.\nJudgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.\nWinboRNe and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHNSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul K. Barnwell for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Monroe M. Redden for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH WHITESIDE v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and W. JACK FAIRCLOTH.\n(Filed 21 September, 1955.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 20\u2014\nWhere the ease on appeal, settled by agreement of counsel, contains the evidence in question and answer form, rather than in narrative form as required by Rule 19 (4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, the judgment will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.\nWinborne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at April-May Term, 1955, of HENDERSON.\nCivil action to recover for sickness and death of plaintiff\u2019s chickens, alleged to have been caused by the defendants\u2019 negligence and breach of contract in using improper serum in inoculating the chickens to prevent Fowl Pox and New Castle Disease.\nThe defendants\u2019 motion for judgment of nonsuit, made at the close of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, was allowed, and from judgment based on such ruling the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nPaul K. Barnwell for plaintiff, appellant.\nMonroe M. Redden for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 634
}