{
  "id": 11985896,
  "name": "Hightour vs. Rush",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hightour v. Rush",
  "decision_date": "1805-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 361"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 361"
    }
  ],
  "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": 67,
    "char_count": 679,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.33,
    "sha256": "d1ae917e8dbb5dff43549e28eedf326858a3a1c186f9df5865b49d47149e435d",
    "simhash": "1:7dca6fea1fe1a8dc",
    "word_count": 113
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hightour vs. Rush."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "^P'HIS was an injunction bill. \u2014 The process was not returned to this term, to which it was returnable; and no proof was made by the affidavit of Mr. Hightour, that he had delivered the process to be executed.\nBay-wood argued, that although an injunction might be dissolved for unnecessary delay, that here Mr. Seawell appeared for the defendant, for a dissolution of the injunction, which proved that they had notice of it 5 and although not seised with process, defendant might answer and dissolve the injunction i\u00a3 fee \u00abodd, upon the merits.\nThe injunction was dissolved, because it did not appear the complainant had endeavored to-have the process served.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hightour vs. Rush."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-02",
  "first_page_order": 365,
  "last_page_order": 365
}