{
  "id": 8555179,
  "name": "THE GELTMAN CORPORATION v. NEISLER MILLS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Geltman Corp. v. Neisler Mills, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1968-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "627",
  "last_page": "628",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 627"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 770",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0098-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2562,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033591147592002
    },
    "sha256": "6595e0c1250b64d7567c2a7fee2c3edba6cbdc68511fc6cd3cbbbc7db826c6ab",
    "simhash": "1:b4e3fd261d4513ee",
    "word_count": 419
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallabd, C.J., and Parker, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE GELTMAN CORPORATION v. NEISLER MILLS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brock, J.\nThe plaintiff assigns as error the action of Judge Falls in allowing defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nThe evidence was in direct conflict, and the question of whether defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of money was a question for the jury. In determining this question it was for the jury to find whether plaintiff had in fact performed services for the defendant.\nIn considering whether plaintiff\u2019s evidence is sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit at the close of all the evidence, all of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. This is so because the jury may give more weight to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence and may find according to the plaintiff's evidence. Sneed v. Lions Club, 273 N.C. 98, 159 S.E. 2d 770.\nWe hold that plaintiff\u2019s evidence as disclosed by the record on appeal is sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury.\nReversed.\nMallabd, C.J., and Parker, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brock, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams, Parnell and Matthews by Phillip B. Matthews tor plaintiff appellant.",
      "H. Haywood Bobbins and Lefl.er and Gordon for defendant ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE GELTMAN CORPORATION v. NEISLER MILLS, INC.\n(Filed 10 July 1968.)\nTrial \u00a7 21\u2014\nOn motion to nonsuit, all of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and this is so because the jury may give more weight to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence and may find according to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Falls, J., 1 January 1968 Session Catawba Superior Court.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover the balance alleged to be due on an account for treating fabrics with stain repellent for the defendant. By answer defendant denied that plaintiff had performed any services for it.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that plaintiff began to treat fabrics with stain repellent for the defendant in December 1965, and continued until July 1966, at which time defendant began doing its own treating of its fabrics. That periodically invoices were sent to defendant and paid by defendant. That in July 1966 defendant owed plaintiff a balance of $5,052.28. That after this action was instituted defendant made seven separate payments' on the account, leaving a balance of $1,500.00 at the time of trial.\n\u2022 Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant was merely a real estate holding company for Massachusetts Mohair Plush Company, Inc., and that plaintiff had never done any work for'the defendant.\nAt the close of all the evidence the trial judge entered judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.\nWilliams, Parnell and Matthews by Phillip B. Matthews tor plaintiff appellant.\nH. Haywood Bobbins and Lefl.er and Gordon for defendant ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0627-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 650
}