{
  "id": 11980308,
  "name": "Arrington's administrator vs. Coleman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arrington's administrator v. Coleman",
  "decision_date": "1804-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 300"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 300"
    }
  ],
  "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": 50,
    "char_count": 430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.373,
    "sha256": "1eaca6120f65dd028d24847c4932916fa32991cc0dce35a220fc3162c0b98825",
    "simhash": "1:a8107066d8745ce0",
    "word_count": 70
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arrington\u2019s administrator vs. Coleman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ftTHEN the trial came on, the plaintiff was about to read two * \u201d depositions of one Philips and his wife, which were essential in the cause, and it ivas objected that Philips, the witness, was a surety for the costs of the suit; whereupon his testimony was rejected. The plaintiff moved fora new trial, on the ground of surprize ; and M-Cay, judge, rejected .his motion without hesitation.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arrington\u2019s administrator vs. Coleman."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 304,
  "last_page_order": 304
}