{
  "id": 8625708,
  "name": "F. F. SHORES AND wife, MARY LEE SHORES v. JAMES L. RABON and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shores v. Rabon",
  "decision_date": "1960-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "428",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 N.C. 428"
    }
  ],
  "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": "112 S.E. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627535
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0790-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1860,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2812312609731301
    },
    "sha256": "7055272c3114da28e56986d8fb07e9f49bd4a2195a8b46e08e6fb688876f838f",
    "simhash": "1:d2fa109a7a0b6054",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:38.064481+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. F. SHORES AND wife, MARY LEE SHORES v. JAMES L. RABON and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cubiam.\nAppellant contends the judgment is erroneous because the court declined to credit the debt with the value of the land received as a result of the foreclosure. This was one of the questions considered and determined adversely to the insurer on the prior appeal. The word \u201cextinguished,\u201d used in the concluding sentence of the opinion on the prior appeal, was used in the sense of payment in whole or in part.\nThat opinion is the law of the case. If deemed erroneous, the proper course to pursue was to petition for a rehearing, not to appeal again.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. L. Richardson and William G. Pittman for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Smith & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. F. SHORES AND wife, MARY LEE SHORES v. JAMES L. RABON and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 November, 1960.)\nAppeal by defendant Insurance Company from Armstrong, J., February 1960 Civil Term, of Union.\nThis cause was here at the Fall Term 1959 on appeal by defendant insurer from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $8,000. Shores v. Rab\u00f3n, 251 N.C. 790, 112 S.E. 556. It was then held feme plaintiff was not entitled to recover; male plaintiff was entitled to recover the debt due him on 5 January 1958' \u2014 one-half of the Reese n\u00f3te \u2014 but not in excess of $8,000 as fixed by the policy. The cause was remanded for a determination of the amount owing to the male plaintiff.\nThe parties then stipulated: \u201c. . .FIFTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED ONE AND 47/100 DOLLARS ($15,201.47) was the balance due on the Note from C. Woodrow Reese and wife, Pearle W. Reese, to F. F. Shores and wife, Mary Lee Shores, as of January 5, 1958, after applying cash payments made thereon by C. W. Reese, et ux\u201d Based on this stipulation the court entered judgment in favor of the male plaintiff for one-half the total debt, to-wit, $7,600.73. Defendant insurer excepted and appealed.\nO. L. Richardson and William G. Pittman for plaintiff, appellee.\nSmith & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0428-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 469
}