{ "id": 4676991, "name": "NICK METZ, Appellant, v. MARTIN S. TIERNEY, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Metz v. Tierney", "decision_date": "1906-01-31", "docket_number": "No. 1110", "first_page": "363", "last_page": "368", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "13 N.M. 363" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "40 L. R. A. 177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 Pick. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2025459 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/35/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Wend. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2015640 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/13/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ohio St. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 520282 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/12/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Pa. St. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1036762 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/75/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Pa. St. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 9504477 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/24/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Vt. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 2356463 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/28/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Mich. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Ala. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 11255469 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/10/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Mont. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Kan. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Kas. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 60828 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/kan/29/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Am. Rep. 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "72 N. Y. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "19 Wend. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2023557 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/19/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 N. Y. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 N. Y. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 N. Y. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 N. Y. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Barb. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 1941869 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/23/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N. Y. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Barb. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 2413609 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/10/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Mich. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1476720 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/110/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Mich. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1391572 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/81/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. W. 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "74 Pa. St. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1034744 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/74/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Atl. 167", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 Atl. 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 N. E. 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Pac. 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "161 N. Y. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 36964 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/161/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Tex. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2233501 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/94/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 N. C. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650921 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/97/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. E. 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 L. R. A. 81", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "148 Mass. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 Gray, 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2079289 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/74/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Iowa, 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2059138 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/74/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Minn. 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 736592 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/18/0324-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Penn. St. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1056615 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/86/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Serg. & R. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Serg. & Rawle", "case_ids": [ 1796830 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/serg-rawl/1/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Mich. 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Am. Rep. 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Nev. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Nev.", "case_ids": [ 97184 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nev/7/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Cush. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1984053 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/57/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Pa. St. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "25 Pa. St. 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 N .Y. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 N. Y. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2005574 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/4/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Barb. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 2421901 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/21/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Yt. 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 2355176 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/28/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Conn. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 6756278 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/20/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Pick. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 N. Y. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 N. E. 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "69 Mich. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "74 Me. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 8844314 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/74/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Mass. 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 741089 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/113/0008-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S. E. 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 N. E. 771", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 Pac. 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "11 N. M., 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Barb. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Rich. 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Rich.", "case_ids": [ 8484295 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/scl/39/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Pa. St. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 988395 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/33/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Pa. St. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Watts, 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Watts", "case_ids": [ 1840073 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/watts/2/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Me. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 8846729 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/26/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Rob. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Rob.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 N. Y. 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "38 N. Y. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 836, "char_count": 10591, "ocr_confidence": 0.446, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1526911414526484 }, "sha256": "c07fb539ce43e4db894b789c30f1c4598b48344d215591acf737a3eb72ebd0b2", "simhash": "1:18f733142ec6250a", "word_count": 1928 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:31:03.422768+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "William J. Mills, C. J., Wm. H. Pope, A. J., Edward A. Mann, A. J., John R. McFie, A. J., concur. \u25a0", "Abbott, A. J-, having .tried the case below, did not participate in this decision." ], "parties": [ "NICK METZ, Appellant, v. MARTIN S. TIERNEY, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nPARKER, J.\n\u2014 This was a hill for injunction by appellant to restrain appellee from erecting a fence along the line between their adjoining property. Appellant alleged that such fence overlapped on his land and was of no beneficial use to appellee, but was erected for malicious purposes and to obstruct appellant\u2019s light and air and to be a menace to Ms building from fire and other causes.\nAppellee answered and denied tbat he was erecting tbe fence for malicious purposes and averred that he was erecting the same for tbe purpose of securing the privacy of Ms own premises where he resided with his family from the observation of the occupants of tbe second st'orv of appellant\u2019s building. Appellant replied tbat tbe fence at the height it bad reached at the time of service of the. writ of injunction prevented any occupant of his building from overlooking appellee\u2019s yard and that appellee proposed to erect the same five feet higher which was unnecessary and was proposed to be done maliciously.\nAppellant proved the erection of the fence by the placing of a frame of timbers on appellee\u2019s land ancl by-nailing thereon planks commencing at a point fourteen feet from-the ground and on a level with the bottom of the second story windows of appellant\u2019s building and extending upward for a distance of three feet and seven inches; that the fence at this point was sufficiently high to obstruct all view of appellee\u2019s premises from appellant\u2019s building, except a small portion of the roof of appellee\u2019s house; that the prosecution of'the work to a still greater height was engaged in by appellee when served with the writ of injunction to the still greater obstruction of the light and air from appellant\u2019s building; that said fence greatly increased the danger of fire to appellant\u2019s building. Appellee offered no evidence and moved for dissolution of the injunction and dismissal of the bill which was done. The transcript does! not contain the testimony of the witnesses, but merely a statement of the substance of the same, agreed to by both parties.\nIt is not contended by appellant that appellee did not have the right to protect his own privacy by a structure of the kind erected. His claim is, however, that the fence was about to be erected to an unnecessary- height, for that purpose and he relies upon that fact alone to show malicious intent to injure his property.\nIt is to be noticed that no direct evidence of motive was submitted. The frame work of the fence was twenty-one feet high, and planks had been nailed to it beginning fourteen feet from the ground and extending upward three feet and seven inches, leaving three feet and five inches as the utmost additional height to which the fence could be extended, and against which appellant sought restraint. It is to the fact of the lack of necessity of this additional height of the fence and the additional injury to his property that appellant looks for proof of bad motive on the part of appellee. Appellee alleged in his answer that the second story of the building was to be used as a rooming house and the allegation was not denied in the reply. It may be that a structure of this kind might, under some circumstances, be so grossly unsuited or disproportionate to the uses claimed for it as to amount to proof of malice, but we cannot determine that this one was such a structure. Under the facts we fail to see how malice has been established by the evidence, and the court below, in finding the facts in favor of the defendant, appellee here, found there was none.\nWe understand the position of appellant to be that the erection of a structure of this kind may be restrained only when the same serves no useful purpose and is with intent to .maliciously injure the property, of another. We do not understand him to claim th\u00e1t in the absence of either one of the foregoing characteristics a court of equity will interfere. This being so, it is clear that he can have no relief in this court and that the judgment below was correct.\nThis conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider whether, in this jurisdiction and in the absence of statute, there is any right, under anjf circumstances to restrain the erection on one\u2019s own property of structures which cut off light and air from adjoining owners. See 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2nd Ed.) 1058, where the eases are collected.\nThere being no error in the decree of the court below, it will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nWilliam J. Mills, C. J., Wm. H. Pope, A. J., Edward A. Mann, A. J., John R. McFie, A. J., concur. \u25a0\nAbbott, A. J-, having .tried the case below, did not participate in this decision.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. F. Adams, for appellant.", "Summers Burkhart, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "[No. 1110,\nJanuary 31, 1906.]\nNICK METZ, Appellant, v. MARTIN S. TIERNEY, Appellee.\nSYLLABUS.\nThe record in this case examined and found to contain no evidence of malice in the erection of a fence which obstructed the light and air from appellant\u2019s building, and, consequently, no relief could he granted even under appellant\u2019s view of the law.\nAppeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before Ira A. Abbott, Associate Justice.\nAffirmed.\nB. F. Adams, for appellant.\nThe parties on appeal are restricted to the theory on which the case was tried in the court below.\nChavez v. Myers, 11 N. M., 342; Heish v. Bell & Co., 70 Pac. 572; 2 Ency. PI. & Pr. 576, Cyc. Yol. 2 p. 670:\nThe case was before the court below on the allegations of plaintiff\u2019s complaint, the answer of defendant, the reply of plaintiff and the evidence of plaintiff. On \u2022issues so made he should have rendered judgment for plaintiff.\nChavez v. Meyers, 11 N. M., 342.\n/ Actions which are innocent and lawful in themselves may become wrongful when done without a just regard ( for the rights of others.\nRogers v. Elliott, 15 N. E. 771; Medford v. Levy, 8 S. E. 306; Com. v. Oaks, 113 Mass. 8; Inchbald v. Robinson, 4 Ch. App. 388; Chesley v. King, 74 Me. 164; Chasemore v-Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 387, 388; Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 382; Cogswell v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 8 N. E. 538; Radcliff v. Mayor, etc., 4 N. Y. 198; Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees & Wells, 32; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 349; Galgay V. Great Southern Railway, 4 Ir. C. L. 45\u00bf; Stanton v. Wool-rich, 23 Beav. 225; Queen v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 3 B. & S. 710; Greenleaf v. Francis, 8 Pick. 117; Roatli y. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 533; Chatfield y. Wilson, 28 Yt. 358; Ellis y. Duncan, 21 Barb. 230; Radclifli\u2019s Ex\u2019rs. y. Mayor, etc., 4 N. Y. 195; Goodale v. Tuttle, 29 N .Y. 495; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 529; Iialderman v. Bruckhart, 45 Pa. St. 518; Parker v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co. 3 Cush. 107; Mosier v. Caldwell, 7 Nev. 363; Sweet v. Cutts, 9 Am. Rep. 284; Note; Baltimore R. R. Co. y. 5th Baptist Church, 108 TJ. S. 332.\nThe intent and purpose of the construction may be determined by the character of the wall.\nKirkwood v. Finegan, 95 Mich. 544; Com. v. Passmore, 1 Serg. & R. 217; Sanderson v. Penn. Coal Co., 86 Penn. St. 401; Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denis, 311; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324; Baltimore & P. R. R. Co. v. Fifth' Baptist Church, 108 TT. S. 317; Shively v. Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co., 74 Iowa, 169; Bassett v. Salisbury Mfg. Co. 43 N. II. 569.\nThe extent of a man\u2019s rights in cases like this may depend in some measure upon the motive with which he acts.\nCarson v. Western R. Co. 8 Gray, 423, 424; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 372; 2 L. R. A. 81; Callahan y. Gilman, 14 N. E. 267.\n\u2022 However, absolute the owners right may be to his property, .he holds it subject to the implied obligation that he will use it in such a way as not to prevent others from using and enjoying their property subject to the same restrictions.\nState y. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477; Karasek v. Pier, 50 D. R. A. 348; 3 Bishop on Non-Contract Law, Secs. 418, 442; Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Oakes, 94 Tex. 155; Sullivan v. Dunham, 161 N. Y. 290; 3 Blackstone, 218; Sullivan v. Royer, 13 Pac. 657; Quinn v. Lowell Electric Light Co., 3 N. E. 200 ; 2 Blackstone, 403; Spelling on Injunction and other extraordinary remedies 379 and 380; Susquehanna Fertilizers Company v. Malone, 20 Atl. 902; Northwestern Fertilizer Co. v. Iiyde Park, 97 H. S. 659; Hurlbut y. McKone, 10 Atl. 167; Weir\u2019s Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 230; Laflin & Rand Powder- Co. v. Tearney, 131 111. 322; Pennoyer y. Allen, 14 N. W. 611; Pomeroy\u2019s Equitable Remedies, Yol. 1, Sec. 528; Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52;\u2018 Peek v. Roe, 110 Mich. 52.\nSee also the following authorities:\nMyers v. Gunnell, 10 Barb. 537; Doyl v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 439; John y. Openheim, 12 Afb. N. S. 449; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. 444; Auburn & Cato P. Road, v. Douglas, 9 N. Y. 447; White v. Spencer, 14 N. Y. 252; Matter of Olive Lee & Co.\u2019s Bk. 14 N. Y. 238; Adams v. Yan Alstyne, 25 N. Y. 238; Flora y. Carbean, 38 N. Y. 115; Hall y. Angsbury, 46 N. Y. 625; McKean v. See, 4 Rob. 467; Wolfe y. Frost, 4 Sanf. Ch. 90. Banks v. Am. Tract Society, 4 Sanf. Ch. 446; Pierre v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436; Hoy v. Sterrett, 2 Watts, 327; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 532; Haverstick v. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; Napier v. Bulwurkle, 5 Rich. 311; 50 Associates v. Tudor, 6. Bray. 250.\nSummers Burkhart, for appellee.\nThe right of appellee to build the fence on his own land to any height he pleased, regardless of his motives, and notwithstanding appellant\u2019s light and air were obstructed, and his insurance rates made higher is sustained, by all the authorities except the Michigan cases.\nLetts v. Kessler, 54 O. St. 73; Pickard y. Collins, 23 Barb. 459; Parker y. Foot, 19 Wend. 309; Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 45, 28 Am. Rep. 93; Mahan v. Brown, 28 Am. Dee. 461; Falloon v. Schilling, 29 Kas. 205; Lapere v. Luekey, 23 Kan. 543; Honsel v. Conant, 12 111. 259; Guest v. Raynolds, 68 111. 483; Bordeaux v. Greene, 22 Mont. 255; Kay v. Lyons, 10 Ala. 63; Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 388, 389; Alder v. Fenton, 65 IJ. S. 24; Chambers v. Baldwin (Ky.) 11 L. K. A. 345; Chatfield v. Wilspn, 28 Vt. 49; Fowler v. Jenkins, 24 Pa. St. 308; Glendin v. Wheeler, 75 Pa. St. 467; 2 Wash. Real Prop. 344; Rideout v. Knox, 148, Mass. 407.\nIf smoke, gas, offensive odors, or noise pass from ones own premises to or upon the premises of another to Ms injury, an action will lie therefor, even though the smoke, gas, odor, or noise, should be caused by the lawful business operations of defendant and with the best of motives.\nBroom, Legal Maxims, 372; See also the following cases: Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294; Folloon v. Schilling, Supra.; Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 261; Greenleaf v. Francis, 18 Pick. 123; Chatfield v. Wilson, Supra.; Letts v. Kessler, 40 L. R. A. 177, Supra." }, "file_name": "0363-01", "first_page_order": 389, "last_page_order": 394 }