{
  "id": 8693109,
  "name": "THE RALEIGH GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Raleigh Gas Light Co. v. City of Raleigh",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 274"
    }
  ],
  "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": 116,
    "char_count": 1122,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4500485559809213e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6548569047847963
    },
    "sha256": "0e6ceeface2b637ff725d6a309080ed4ed7608ccd0cbc2b4b9d78503eb9a5687",
    "simhash": "1:622397c6060c65b6",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE RALEIGH GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe only point in this case is covered by Tucker v. The City of Raleigh, at this term. It is there decided that the Funding Act of February, 1875, did not require the sanction of the popular vote.\nWe think, however, that the judgment ought to have been an alternative mandamus, as the City may show cause, as that it prefers to pay the debt rather than fund, &c.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Busbee & Busbee, for the appellant.",
      "Haywood, Towle and Snow, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE RALEIGH GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. THE CITY OF RALEIGH.\nThe proper judgment in an action against a city or town, upon a recovery for necessary expenses is an Alternative, and not a Peremptory Mandamus. (The other points decided are the same as those in Tuclcer v. The Oity of Raleigh, ante, page \u2014. See Syllabus thereto.)\nCivil Action, tried before Watts, J., at January Term, 1876, of Wake Superior Court.\nThe same points were involved in the case of Tuclcer v. The Oity of Raleigh, ante.\nThere was judgment in favor of the plaintiff, according to the prayer of the complaint, and the defendant appealed.\nBusbee & Busbee, for the appellant.\nHaywood, Towle and Snow, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 282
}