{
  "id": 8626331,
  "name": "UTICA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. J. ROMIE SUTTON and AZILE SUTTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Utica Fire Insurance v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1957-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "340",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 N.C. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": 174,
    "char_count": 2018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "sha256": "e997956efbda0fa0ebaf6f1dfccd549eab043c37865d10858dbaf203ed0bbecf",
    "simhash": "1:004e56bd48468539",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:34.544387+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "UTICA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. J. ROMIE SUTTON and AZILE SUTTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe plaintiff excepts to and assigns as error the ruling of the court below in sustaining the motion for judgment as of nonsuit.\nA review of the evidence revealed by the record on appeal, including the stipulations entered into by the parties, leads us to the conclusion that the case should have been submitted to the jury. Hence, the judgment below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. K. Powe for plaintiff appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "UTICA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. J. ROMIE SUTTON and AZILE SUTTON.\n(Filed 22 May, 1957.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nimocks, J., October Term 1956 of Durham.\nThis is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for damages growing out of an automobile collision which occurred on South Duke Street in the City of Durham, North Carolina, about 2:50 p.m. on 14 June 1952.\nAn automobile belonging to the plaintiff\u2019s insured, Thomas G. Shepherd, was parked on the west side of Duke Street near the curb, headed south, and was struck by the car of the defendant J. Romie Sutton while being driven south on Duke Street by his daughter, Azile Sutton.\nAzile Sutton is a minor and no guardian ad litem having been appointed to represent her, only J. Romie Sutton filed answer.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence tends to show that at the time of the collision, Azile Sutton was driving said automobile with the permission of her father, and just before the collision she was talking to her mother, who was a passenger in the car she was driving, and looked up too late to avoid hitting the Shepherd car.\nThe parties stipulated that the damages to the automobile owned by the plaintiff\u2019s insured resulting from the collision were $373.74 and the plaintiff paid its insured therefor the sum of $323.74 under the provisions of its collision policy of insurance and seeks recovery in the amount it paid out under its right of subrogation.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the defendant J. Romie Sutton moved for judgment as of nonsuit, and the motion was allowed.\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nE. K. Powe for plaintiff appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 389,
  "last_page_order": 390
}