{
  "id": 8684592,
  "name": "SARAH H. DULA and another v. ZEPHANIAH YOUNG and C. W. CLARK, Adm'r., &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dula v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1875-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "69",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. 69"
    }
  ],
  "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": 81,
    "char_count": 642,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "sha256": "eacf8d8ce367227e59586ec6d19d4420f2df8dc5ebef106d7730609ab5bc2abf",
    "simhash": "1:8f43441efe7597ec",
    "word_count": 114
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:27.517682+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH H. DULA and another v. ZEPHANIAH YOUNG and C. W. CLARK, Adm\u2019r., &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe learned argument of the counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy us that we had mistaken any important fact, or misapplied any principle of law or equity. \u00a5e must therefore adhere to our decision, and for the reasons stated in the opinion of our learned brother, Justice Settle.\nThere will be judgment against the petitioner for cost.\nPee Cueiam.\nJudgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J. Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH H. DULA and another v. ZEPHANIAH YOUNG and C. W. CLARK, Adm\u2019r., &c.\n(Dula v. Young, 70 N. C. Rep. 450, affirmed.\nPetitioN to re-hear this case, which was decided in this Court at January Term, 1874.\nThe case is fully reported in 70 N. 0. Rep., 450."
  },
  "file_name": "0069-01",
  "first_page_order": 77,
  "last_page_order": 77
}