{
  "id": 8687971,
  "name": "D. L. BOING v. RALEIGH & GASTON RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boing v. Raleigh & Gaston Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1884-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "199",
  "last_page": "200",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.C. 199"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689154
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683356
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689154
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683356
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0560-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2179,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.584505560883498e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5260376184094131
    },
    "sha256": "dc14615b6589951195ac9d9ece65e50ec386b742de10b930e721b0938cd9b75d",
    "simhash": "1:62874d5a01867d34",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:30.396726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. L. BOING v. RALEIGH & GASTON RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": ".Smith, C. J.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s action is to recover damages for his cow run over and killed by the train of the defendant from the negligence and mismanagement of its officers and servants in charge.\nThe only exception presented on the defendant\u2019s appeal is to the refusal of the court to charge the jury that the measure of the plaintiff\u2019s damages was the difference between the value of the cow, living, and of its dead body, as beef.\nThe killing is not itself a conversion of the animal to the use of the defendant, but it remained still the property of plaintiff and at his disposal, and whatever price it would then and there command, should go in mitigation of damages. \u2022 This is the rule where the injury does not cause death, and as cows are used for food, there is no sufficient reason for not making the deduction asked in the present trial.\nThe case falls directly within the ruling in Roberts v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 560, which, as we were told in the argument, had not been reported when the trial took place. We are content to refer to this as a decisive adjudication which must control.\nThere is error and there must be a new trial upon the issue of damages, while the other findings will remain undisturbed, as was the course pursued in Burton v. Railroad, 84 N. C., 192; Lindley v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 547. The cause will be remanded to this end.\n, Error. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": ".Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. 'Young & Henry, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Hinsdale & 'Devereux, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. L. BOING v. RALEIGH & GASTON RAILROAD COMPANY.\nRailroads \u2014 Negligen ce \u2014 Damages.\n1. The decision in Roberts v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 560, to the' efEeet that the measure of plaintiff\u2019s damages in an action against a railroad for killing a cow, is the difference between the value of the animal, living, and of its dead body, as beef, is approved.\n2. A new trial is awarded upon the issue as to damages, but the ' findings upon the other issues will remain undisturbed.\n{Roberts v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 560; Burton v. Railroad, 84 N. C., 192; Bindley v. Railroad, 88 N. C.; 547, cited and approved.)\nCivil Actiok tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Vance Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.\nThe defendant appealed.\nMessrs. 'Young & Henry, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Hinsdale & 'Devereux, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0199-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 214
}