{
  "id": 8610440,
  "name": "CARL F. SPAUGH, JR., and wife, BETTY JO SPAUGH v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spaugh v. City of Winston-Salem",
  "decision_date": "1958-10-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "133",
  "last_page": "133",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 133"
    }
  ],
  "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": 161,
    "char_count": 1761,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "d56f054ac9abe0543181fc5acf3e17b49803515363609522f141d44d61a6c140",
    "simhash": "1:1ab396903561af5b",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Parker, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARL F. SPAUGH, JR., and wife, BETTY JO SPAUGH v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe assignments of error brought up on this appeal relate only to the exclusion of testimony of male plaintiff, and of his father pertaining to matters not relevant and material to the issues raised by the pleadings. In them prejudicial error is not made to appear. Hence in the judgment below there is\nNo Error.\nParker, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Deal, Hutchins & Minor for plaintiff, appellants.",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Henry G. Barnhill, Jr., for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARL F. SPAUGH, JR., and wife, BETTY JO SPAUGH v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.\n(Filed 29 October, 1958.)\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Sharp, S. J., at June 16, 1958, Civil Term of Forsyth.\nCivil action to recover for damage to home place of plaintiffs by reason of alleged pollution of air from the city\u2019s disposal plant.\nDefendant, answering complaint of plaintiffs, denies liability and pleads statute of limitations.\nUpon trial in Superior Court, on evidence offered by the respective parties, the case was submitted to the jury upon these issues, the first two of which the jury answered as indicated:\n\u201c1. Is the plaintiffs\u2019 cause of action barred by the 3-year statute of limitations, as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes, except from June 19, 1954.\n\u201c2. Has the defendant damaged the home of the plaintiff by operation and maintenance of its sewer system? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. What amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiffs because of temporary damages to plaintiffs\u2019 home from June 19, 1954 through June 19, 1958? Answer .\u201d\nAnd, pursuant to the verdict so rendered, the trial court entered judgment that plaintiffs recover nothing of the defendant and that plaintiffs be taxed with the costs. Plaintiffs except thereto and appeal to Supreme Court, and assign error.\nDeal, Hutchins & Minor for plaintiff, appellants.\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Henry G. Barnhill, Jr., for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0133-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 175
}