{
  "id": 8622417,
  "name": "CLYDE M. SCOTT v. JOE C. SCOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1955-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "733",
  "last_page": "734",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 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": 130,
    "char_count": 1225,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "sha256": "55f9ae61b496ba1b3ef6a9bb85059090ad67ade8bdc9605c97b2ef06087cc701",
    "simhash": "1:d6bbc94a774661dc",
    "word_count": 194
  },
  "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": [
      "CLYDE M. SCOTT v. JOE C. SCOTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe jury, on conflicting evidence, resolved the contested (second) issue in defendant\u2019s favor; and there was ample evidence to support this verdict. After careful consideration of plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error, we find no error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.\nWiNBORNE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. Kermit Caldwell for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. M. Scarborough for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLYDE M. SCOTT v. JOE C. SCOTT.\n(Filed 12 October, 1955.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Patton, Special Judge, 16 May, 1955, Extra Civil Term of MeciclenbuRG.\nCivil action under G.S. 50-16 for alimony without divorce:\nThe issues of fact, submitted to and answered by the jury, were as follows:\n\u201c1. Were the plaintiff and defendant married to each other as alleged in the Complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. Did the defendant wrongfully separate himself from the plaintiff and fail to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition in life? Answer: No.\u201d\nJudgment for defendant was entered on the verdict. Plaintiff excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nB. Kermit Caldwell for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. M. Scarborough for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0733-01",
  "first_page_order": 775,
  "last_page_order": 776
}