{
  "id": 8624466,
  "name": "MARCUS EVAN CAMPBELL v. MARGARET BROWN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Campbell v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1959-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "214",
  "last_page": "214",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 214"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625972
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0713-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625972
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0713-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3032526220640663
    },
    "sha256": "f63a9febf0229233bf53c8e4d6c31f5298b9e7ea6691d149c43d5dbc16926c3a",
    "simhash": "1:2f2536eac0d6a4df",
    "word_count": 332
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARCUS EVAN CAMPBELL v. MARGARET BROWN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn Lampley v. Bell, 250 N.C. 713, 110 S.E. 2d 316, opinion filed September 23,1959, this Court fully considered the identical question; .and, upon authority thereof, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Indeed, by stipulation filed in this Court, the parties agree that Lampley v. Bell, supra, controls decision here and requires such reversal.\nIt is noted that Lampley v. Bell, supra, had not been decided when the court entered the judgment (April 13, 1959) from which this appeal is taken.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton and Don Davis for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Coltrane & Gavin for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARCUS EVAN CAMPBELL v. MARGARET BROWN.\n(Filed 11 November, 1959.)\n1. Compromise and Settlement\u2014\nJudgment sustaining defendant\u2019s plea in bar based on a settlement made by plaintiff\u2019s insurer with defendant without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, reversed on authority of Lampley v. Bell, 250 N.C. 713.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., April Term, 1959, of RANDOLPH.\nCivil action to recover property damages allegedly 'caused by the negligence of defendant, growing out of a collision on July 14, 1958' at a street intersection in Randleman, N. C., between automobiles owned by plaintiff and by defendant. Evan D. Campbell, plaintiff\u2019s minor son, was operating plaintiff\u2019s oar; .and Jerry Brown, defendant\u2019s minor son, was operating defendant\u2019s ear. \u2019\nPlaintiff moved to strike the .allegations of defendant\u2019s. \u201cSecond Further Defense\u201d wherein defendant \u00a1alleged, in bar of plaintiff\u2019s action, the payment to defendant by plaintiff\u2019s liability insurance carrier of $250.00\u2019in full settlement of defendant\u2019s claims \u00a1against plaintiff, Evan D. Campbell and said insurance carrier, and the-execution by defendant of a release.\nThere was a hearing with reference to defendant\u2019s said plea in bar in which the parties stipulated, inter alia, that the insurance carrier made the settlement and obtained defendant\u2019s release \u201cwithout the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff.\u201d The court ruled that, .upon the stipulated facts, plaintiff\u2019s action was barred; and judgment', dismissing the action \u00a1and taxing plaintiff with costs, was entered. Plaintiff excepted and appealed. \u25a0 \u25a0\nOttway Burton and Don Davis for plaintiff, appellant.\nColtrane & Gavin for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0214-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 258
}