{
  "id": 8624678,
  "name": "A. L. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY; and PEARL M. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berrier v. Hilton",
  "decision_date": "1960-11-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "290",
  "last_page": "291",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 N.C. 290"
    }
  ],
  "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": 113,
    "char_count": 1263,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "6da128a5d63fcfd2f7ad93ef198c60db26ffef2e082947fed550089a9e33824d",
    "simhash": "1:96d015ca7a8a98c7",
    "word_count": 205
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:38.064481+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. L. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY and PEARL M. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nCareful consideration of the record of the case on appeal here under review fails to disclose error for which the judgments entered in Superior Court should be disturbed. Hence in the said judgments there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walser & Brinkley for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Wilson <& Saintsing for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. L. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY and PEARL M. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY.\n(Filed 2 November, 1960.)\nAppeal by defendants from Johnston, J., at June 1960 Civil Term, of DAVIDSON.\nCivil action instituted by plaintiffs against defendants to recover for certain personal services alleged to have been performed by them for the benefit of M. M. Murphy, non compos mentis, under guardianship, the defendant\u2019s intestate.\nThe cases were consolidated for trial, and submitted to and answered by the jury upon these two issues: \u201cWhat amount, if any, is the plaintiff A. L. Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $3,500.\n\u201cWhat amount, if any, is the plaintiff Pearl Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $11,000.\u201d\nTo judgments entered in favor of the respective plaintiffs in accordance therewith the defendant in each case excepted and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nWalser & Brinkley for plaintiff appellees.\nWilson <& Saintsing for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0290-01",
  "first_page_order": 330,
  "last_page_order": 331
}