{
  "id": 11963375,
  "name": "Knight vs. Knight",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knight v. Knight",
  "decision_date": "1799-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "101",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 101"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 101"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.337,
    "sha256": "f7bf23e9e9aa005bfaec37b2a6c92cc4010c2445e0b88735d365fe436b83adf0",
    "simhash": "1:abab2671a0be8dd1",
    "word_count": 200
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Knight vs. Knight."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Thereupon the court, Moore and Haywood, over-ruled the demurrer, and ordered that the defendant answer.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Plummer for the plaintif"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Knight vs. Knight.\n\" *OlLL by a man led woman for a separate maintenance, o\u00bb ae-count of the ill usage of the husband, and demurrer thereto, for that it was not brought by her prochein arnie.\nPlummer for the plaintif\nsaid, it had been the practice in this .court to institute \u00bfsuch suits\u2019, \u00a1'.bout a prochein am;e; and he .cited two p.r.-cfl \u2019 \u2022 Hu\u00bb- \u2022 Hu .1 r r,~ II os. Sarto-., o IR .<\u2022 i-i, \u00a1:\u00a1 Ni \u25a0 ! .<\u25a0\u25a0!. : somecs-\", v.pros,\u2018id.: ur,\\ \u2022 had 1). :->! : \u2022 ;\u25a0 vs' \u2019\\ier ti)*t b night >vv; vV. cop's : bu-. even th.' -, ti-- ; tie; had v Id, and mAL\u00f3tances, the wife had sued w.;i .m. o te. d >.t came ' vason for requiring a pro-chein amie did n \u2022! -\u25a0 si..; :c this e ;r,r, since the act of Assembly making it necessary ior all persons to give security for costs before process can issue ; and that such security had been actually given in the present case, and to shew that the practice in England had been both ways, he cited 1 E. Ca. 67, which cites 1 Ch. C. 4 & C. 4."
  },
  "file_name": "0101-02",
  "first_page_order": 105,
  "last_page_order": 105
}