{
  "id": 8682752,
  "name": "JONATHAN WORTH, Adm'r., against ALEX GRAY and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Worth v. Gray",
  "decision_date": "1863-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "380",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Jones Eq. 380"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. 380"
    }
  ],
  "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": 126,
    "char_count": 1407,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.416,
    "sha256": "de625af79b2d31c7216a562ebcb27d0bb7f057920aa093eab5ad26f586214e83",
    "simhash": "1:ba93cfff30a28299",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:08.358246+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JONATHAN WORTH, Adm'r., against ALEX GRAY and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PearsoN, C. J.\nIf replication be taken to a plea, in a suit in equity, the sufficiency of the plea, in respect to the law, is admitted. To take issue on the matters of law, presented by a plea, it should be set down for argument. In this case, the plaintiff having taken replication, the only matter open is the truth of the allegations of the plea. It follows that no exception can be sustained, in respect to those parts of the bill, which arc covered by the plea.\nWe have considered the exceptions, in respect to the other parts of the bill, and are of opinion that the answer is sufficiently responsive, and as full as could be expected or required in regard to transactions of such long standing. The irregularity of filing two answers, we think, is fully explained. The first answer is incorporated as a part of the second, and the plaintiff may have the benefit of both.\nPer Curiam, Decretal order affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PearsoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Graham, for the plaintiff.",
      "Morehead, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JONATHAN WORTH, Adm'r., against ALEX GRAY and others.\nWhere certain matters have been set forth in the answer, by the way of plea, and there has been replication to the answer, it is too late to except to the answer for insufficiency.\nAppeal from the Court of Equity of Randolph county.\nThe plaintiff excepted to the defendants\u2019 answer on account of insufficiency. The exceptions were over-ruled, and plaintiff appealed to this Court.\nGraham, for the plaintiff.\nMorehead, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0380-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 388
}