{
  "id": 8567587,
  "name": "ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holshouser v. Morgan",
  "decision_date": "1964-11-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "99",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 98"
    }
  ],
  "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": 171,
    "char_count": 1930,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "72fa2ee8dbfa65bdc85817bb28d2c155f188194226c7817f4a78b1d35162c2a4",
    "simhash": "1:25f4263bb224f469",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER C\u00fcRiam.\nThe complaint, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to require that the' court submit the issues for jury determination. Hence, defendant\u2019s demurrer to complaint \u201cfor failure ... to allege a eause of action,\u201d -and defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit, were properly overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, \u00e9xcept formal assignments, relate to (1) rulings on evidence, (2) portions of the charge, as given and (3) the court\u2019s failure to' give additional instructions. Each of these assignments has received full consideration. In our view, none discloses prejudicial error or merits discussion in detail.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER C\u00fcRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Woodson, Hudson \u25a0& Busby for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Graham M. Carlton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased.\n(Filed 25 November, 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J.,, May 18, 1964, Session of R.QWAN. ... . V5. ;;\nCivil action to recover compensation for services rendered Love Hill, who died testate on April 24, 1962, \u201cat the age of approximately 80 years.\u201d\nThe only evidence was that offered by plaintiff.\nThe issues submitted and the jury\u2019s. answers were as follows: \u201c1. Did the plaintiff, Rosa Morgan Henderson Holshouser, during the last three years of the life of Love Hill, under an implied contract, perform .services for the said Love Hill, which he knowingly accepted and did not pay or settle for, and for which the plaintiff expected pay, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: YES. 2. If so, what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for such services? ANSWER: $2600.00.\u201d\nJudgment for plaintiff in accordance with the verdict was entered. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nWoodson, Hudson \u25a0& Busby for plaintiff appellee.\nGraham M. Carlton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 137
}