{
  "id": 8693000,
  "name": "DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH; DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fowle v. City of Raleigh",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 273"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 1013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "sha256": "d01f6b9a38c4441b9ce7a30880f0f9ce1b221582ab5824ae576d912da56b3080",
    "simhash": "1:2a93e252260fa59c",
    "word_count": 184
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH. DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nAll the points in this case are covered by the case of Tucker v. City of Raleigh, at this term, except that in this case the defendant denies that the price of the services rendered was reasonable.\nIn the absence' of fraud or collusion, the price agreed on by the parties must be taken to be fair.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Busbee & Busbee, for the appellant.",
      "Haywood, Fowle and Snow, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH. DANIEL G. FOWLE v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH.\nIn the absence of fraud or collusion, the price agreed upon by the parties to a contract must he presumed to he fair.\ntForthe other points decided, see the case of Tuekerv., (Kty of Raleigh, next preceding.)\nCiyil Action, tried before Watts, J., at January Term., 1876, of Wake Superior Court.\nThe points raised by this case were decided in the case of W. H. & R. S. TucJcer v. 1 he Oity of Raleigh, ante.\nThere was judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nBusbee & Busbee, for the appellant.\nHaywood, Fowle and Snow, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 281,
  "last_page_order": 282
}