{
  "id": 11278316,
  "name": "GIDEON PERRY and others v. H. M. TUPPER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perry v. Tupper",
  "decision_date": "1874-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "388",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 N.C. 387"
    }
  ],
  "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": 127,
    "char_count": 1520,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.417,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6899599165820092
    },
    "sha256": "98165df97d639cbbccdeb0a6f8c897a7fb23910ae761ced0b180930d93564517",
    "simhash": "1:41b6e5b2c32a2ba2",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:20.176490+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GIDEON PERRY and others v. H. M. TUPPER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThis is a branch of a case between the same parties at this term. In that case the Judge granted an injunction and the defendant appealed. In this case the plaintiff appealed from the refusal of the Judge to grant a restraining order at an earlier stage of the case.\nWe think his Honor was right in x'efusing the restraining oi\u2019der. Our reasons for this opinion will be found in the other bi\u2019anch of the case at this term.\nWhere a party has been put out of possession of land by an abuse of the process of the law, there must be restitution as a matter of course, unless some new matter has intervened in the meantime.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified.\nPee Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fowle and Lewis, fox\u2019 appellants.",
      "Smith & Strong, Haywood and Rogers, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GIDEON PERRY and others v. H. M. TUPPER.\nWhere a party has been put out of possession of land by an abuse of the-process of the law, there must be restitution as a matter of course, unless some new matter has intervened in the mean time. And until-restitution is made no application for an injunction will be entertained' by the Court.\nThis is a branch of the preceding case, demanding the same\u2019 relief heard upon the application for an injunction by his Honor, Judge Watts, at Chambers, on the 9th April, 1874, in-Wake county.\nThe facts of this case are those of the preceding. When the application for the injunction was first made, as stated in thati case, his Honor refused to grant it; and from- this refusal, the-plaintiffs appealed.\nFowle and Lewis, fox\u2019 appellants.\nSmith & Strong, Haywood and Rogers, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 395,
  "last_page_order": 396
}