{
  "id": 8522428,
  "name": "GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMOS F. DAVIS, d/b/a AMOS F. DAVIS LOGGING, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gregory Poole Equipment Co. v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 918SC1049",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 61"
    }
  ],
  "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": "277 S.E.2d 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2646421
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0500-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3412,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20550715505035236
    },
    "sha256": "d360716328e7e6f9fac1a0f5dc11acbb0354c7c8470e9c9863cb790ac54c2ab0",
    "simhash": "1:8fab933bfa2255cc",
    "word_count": 578
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:37.144077+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMOS F. DAVIS, d/b/a AMOS F. DAVIS LOGGING, Defendant-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nThe record indicates that Judge Fountain peremptorily instructed the jury on the one issue submitted to it as follows:\nThe COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury this is a civil action wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover on account for the purchase of two log skidders, and an open account. The defendant has filed an answer in which he has denied that he\u2019s indebted to the plaintiff in the amounts claimed by the plaintiff.\nOne issue will be submitted to you. And that simply means one question will be submitted to you, and your answer to that question will constitute your verdict. It reads as follows: \u201cWhat amount, if any is the defendant\u201d \u2014 that is Mr. Davis \u2014 \u201cindebted to the plaintiff\u201d \u2014 that is Gregory Poole Company?\nSo, if you find from the evidence the facts to be as all the evidence tends to show, you will award the plaintiff the sum of $89,542.42. If you do not so find, you will answer it \u201cnothing.\u201d\nDefendant argues the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial. We disagree.\nThe trial judge has the discretionary power to set aside a verdict or grant a new trial when, in his opinion, it would work injustice to let the jury\u2019s verdict stand; and, if no question of law or legal inference is involved, his action in so doing is not subject to review on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Seaman v. McQueen, 51 N.C. App. 500, 277 S.E.2d 118 (1981). The record discloses no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial. The appeal is dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges Arnold and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard, From, Stallings & Hutson, P.A., by John N. Hutson, Jr. and Maria C. Scanga, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "White & Allen, P.A., by John P. Marshall, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMOS F. DAVIS, d/b/a AMOS F. DAVIS LOGGING, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. 918SC1049\n(Filed 3 November 1992)\nTrial \u00a7 52 (NCI3d)\u2014 verdict that defendant not indebted to plaintiff\u2014 setting aside \u2014no abuse of discretion\nIn an action to recover on account for the purchase of logging equipment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury\u2019s verdict that defendant was not indebted to plaintiff and in ordering a new trial.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 679, 682, 708; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1953-1955.\nAPPEAL by defendant froin Fountain (George MJ, Judge. Order entered 22 May 1991 in Superior Court, LENOIR County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 1992.\nThis is a civil action wherein plaintiff seeks to recover money damages totalling $90,011.17 allegedly due as the deficiency balance remaining on two Conditional Sales Contracts executed by plaintiff and defendant for the purchase of certain farm equipment by defendant from plaintiff.\nAt trial, only one issue was submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:\nWhat amount if any is the Defendant indebted to the Plaintiff?\nAnswer: $0.00\nUpon the return of the verdict, Judge Fountain entered the following order:\nThe jury having answered \u201cnothing\u201d to the issue submitted to the jury, which issue read: \u201cWhat amount, if any, is the Defendant indebted to the Plaintiff?\u201d Upon the return of such verdict, the Court, in its discretion, sets aside the verdict as being inadequate.\nFrom Judge Fountain\u2019s order setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial, defendant appealed.\nHoward, From, Stallings & Hutson, P.A., by John N. Hutson, Jr. and Maria C. Scanga, for plaintiff, appellee.\nWhite & Allen, P.A., by John P. Marshall, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 91
}
