{
  "id": 8625628,
  "name": "JAMES W. CHESHIRE, JR., v. VERNIE DEAN WRIGHT and H. J. CAPPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cheshire v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1956-01-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "441",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 441"
    }
  ],
  "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": 152,
    "char_count": 1964,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28536586495969457
    },
    "sha256": "a26ac56ff05157ef24ea1b505220ad6babd5426e4fa23b6d31075ed49b86a662",
    "simhash": "1:86360069202115d4",
    "word_count": 313
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES W. CHESHIRE, JR., v. VERNIE DEAN WRIGHT and H. J. CAPPS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CtjRiam.\nThe jury, under application of settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against the defendants. While the appellant\u2019s well-prepared brief presents contentions involving fine distinctions and close differentiations, a careful examination of the assignments of error discloses no new question or feature requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CtjRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Q. LeGrand for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Cooper, Long, Latham & Cooper for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES W. CHESHIRE, JR., v. VERNIE DEAN WRIGHT and H. J. CAPPS.\n(Filed 13 January, 1956.)\nAppeal by defendant Capps from Hubbard, Special Judge, at February Special Term, 1955, of ORANGE.\nCivil action in tort tried upon the following issues, answered as indicated:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured and his automobile damaged by the negligence of the defendant, Yernie Dean Wright, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. Was the defendant Yernie Dean Wright, the agent or employee of the defendant, H. J. Capps, and as such acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of his principal\u2019s business, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c3. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his personal injury and property damage, as alleged in the defendant\u2019s answer? Answer: No.\n\u201c4. In what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant, Vernie Dean Wright and the defendant, H. J. Capps, or either of them, for personal injury? Answer: $30,000.00.\n\u201c5. In what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant, Yernie Dean Wright and the defendant, H. J. Capps, or either of them for damages to his automobile? Answer: $1,869.10.\n\u201c6. Was the negligence of the defendant, Vernie Dean Wright, primary, and that of H. J. Capps, secondary? Answer: Yes.\u201d\nFrom judgment upon the verdict the defendant H. J. Capps appealed.\nJ. Q. LeGrand for plaintiff, appellee.\nCooper, Long, Latham & Cooper for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0441-01",
  "first_page_order": 481,
  "last_page_order": 481
}