{
  "id": 8621592,
  "name": "NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1955-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "110",
  "last_page": "110",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 110"
    }
  ],
  "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": "191 S.E. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629241
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0739-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1380,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072149766260504
    },
    "sha256": "5b6c9497329af79ee9c81da634923f2fb0c8b7e4ab0f6faf777f6bf36a92c356",
    "simhash": "1:c1b852b794cdad83",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR C\u00fcRiam.\nThis is a civil action to enjoin the threatened abrogation of an operating contract involving the interchange of freight and division of revenue between the plaintiff and the defendant, common carriers by rail.\nThe plaintiff moved the trial court for a temporary order restraining abrogation of the contract pending final hearing of the cause. The motion was allowed, and from judgment entered in accordance with such ruling, the defendant appeals.\nThe Court being evenly divided in opinion as to the correctness of the foregoing ruling, Justice Higgins not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, without becoming a precedent. Trust Co. v. Merrick, 211 N.C. 739, 191 S.E. 5. The plaintiff\u2019s motion, made in this Court, to amend the complaint is denied.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR C\u00fcRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Simms & Simms, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee, and A. J. Winder and C. J. Collins of Norfolk, Virginia, and E. B. Ussery of Columbia, South Carolina, of counsel for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "\u25a0Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett and Joyner & Howison for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 9 November, 1955.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 38\u2014\nWhere the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, the decision of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., at May Civil Term, 1955, of WaKE.\nSimms & Simms, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee, and A. J. Winder and C. J. Collins of Norfolk, Virginia, and E. B. Ussery of Columbia, South Carolina, of counsel for plaintiff, appellee.\n\u25a0Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett and Joyner & Howison for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0110-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 150
}