{
  "id": 8624417,
  "name": "TOM BULLARD v. FRANCIS PHILLIPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bullard v. Phillips",
  "decision_date": "1957-04-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "87",
  "last_page": "88",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 N.C. 87"
    }
  ],
  "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": 159,
    "char_count": 1894,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388479791678974
    },
    "sha256": "3a5fdc56365f4cce95cb676342b794fb8ee1901b3ac2500bf50f251069c9dcb8",
    "simhash": "1:801afbed7055b055",
    "word_count": 314
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:34.544387+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TOM BULLARD v. FRANCIS PHILLIPS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nCivil action in tort arising out of a collision of an automobile with a cow. The plaintiff was driving his automobile after dark along Highway #601 between Mocksville and Yadkinville, when suddenly a cow belonging to the defendant jumped in front of the car and was struck and killed.\nThe plaintiff alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant in driving a herd of untied cattle, some seven or eight in number, along a much traveled highway in the nighttime without lights, warning, or any notice to the traveling public. The defendant denied negligence, pleaded contributory negligence, and set up a cross action for the loss of his cow. Each party introduced evidence in support of his allegations, and the court submitted to the jury all the issues raised by the pleadings. The jury answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages in the sum of $400. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning as the only error the refusal of the court to allow his motion for nonsuit at the close of the evidence.\nWe have reviewed carefully the evidence and find it amply sufficient to sustain the ruling of the trial court. The appeal presents no question requiring extended discussion.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hall & Zachary for defendant, appellant.",
      "Allen, Henderson & Williams for plaintiff, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOM BULLARD v. FRANCIS PHILLIPS.\n(Filed 10 April, 1957.)\nAnimals \u00a7 3: Automobiles \u00a7 10%\u2014\nEvidence that defendant was driving some seven or eight cattle along a much traveled highway in the nighttime without lights, warning, or any notice to the traveling public, tha-t one of the cows jumped in front of plaintiff\u2019s ear, and that plaintiff\u2019s car was damaged in the resulting collision, held sufficient to overrule defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1956, of YadKIN.\nHall & Zachary for defendant, appellant.\nAllen, Henderson & Williams for plaintiff, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0087-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 138
}