{
  "id": 8626571,
  "name": "SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN O. (JACK) SHUFORD and Wife, ELLEN HOLLAND SHUFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sinclair Refining Co. v. Shuford",
  "decision_date": "1956-03-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 635"
    }
  ],
  "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": 118,
    "char_count": 1323,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "sha256": "dd473e9190cfc1a9659660bd89f7f2bc9728d7dbdb20d4d259bcc5df0add4d39",
    "simhash": "1:3b9135cb506311ba",
    "word_count": 214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN O. (JACK) SHUFORD and Wife, ELLEN HOLLAND SHUFORD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR C\u00fcRiam.\nA careful examination of the assignments of error brought forward by the appellant and argued in its brief, in our opinion, present no prejudicial error of sufficient merit to justify an order for a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR C\u00fcRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Childs & Childs for appellant.",
      "M. T. Leatherman for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN O. (JACK) SHUFORD and Wife, ELLEN HOLLAND SHUFORD.\n(Filed 7 March, 1956.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Froneberger, J., September Term, 1955, of LINCOLN.\nThis is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for the recovery of damages to the property of the plaintiff, which property adjoined the property of the defendants, said damages being caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants, their agents and employees, by setting fire to trash and rubbish on the property of the defendants without properly guarding the same, which fire burned the property of the plaintiff.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, motion for judgment as of nonsuit was interposed on behalf of both defendants. The motion was overruled as to defendant John 0. (Jack) Shuford but allowed as to defendant Ellen Holland Shuford.\nThe jury answered the first issue as to negligence in favor of the defendant. From the judgment entered on the verdict the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nChilds & Childs for appellant.\nM. T. Leatherman for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 675,
  "last_page_order": 675
}