{
  "id": 8547206,
  "name": "K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "K. M. Biggs Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7116DC401",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 39"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 1823,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "sha256": "a5c81bff1e12880a2354c4fbca53ef548ed41817d6a9d39bd2e7fd13b8d633c8",
    "simhash": "1:178ac7aaef60a090",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff makes eleven assignments of error: nine are to various portions of the charge, one relates to the issues submitted, and the other is to the denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict.\nWe have carefully considered all of plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error and are of the opinion that no prejudicial error is made to appear.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson, Hedgpeth, Biggs & Campbell by I. Murchison Biggs for plaintiff appellant.",
      "No counsel of record for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "K. M. BIGGS TRACTOR SALES, INC. v. JAMES FURMAN SCOTT\nNo. 7116DC401\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Britt, District Judge, 15 February 1971 Session of District Court held in Robeson County.\nPlaintiff sought to recover for labor and materials furnished in repairing defendant\u2019s tractor and to recover possession of the tractor in order to enforce a mechanics lien. Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and sought, by way of counterclaim, to recover on an alleged (1) breach of warranty on a new motor purchased from plaintiff, (2) for an overcharge paid on the purchase price, and (3) for the cost of needed repairs to the motor.\nAfter hearing the evidence, the judge submitted issues to the jury which were answered as follows:\n\u201c1. What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant on account of the repair contract as alleged in the complaint?\nAnswer: None\n2. Did defendant remove his tractor from plaintiff\u2019s premises without the consent of the plaintiff?\nAnswer: No\n3. What amount, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of plaintiff because of the breach of warranty and overcharge as alleged in the answer?\nBreach of Warranty None\nOvercharge None\nTotal None\u201d\nFrom the judgment entered on the verdict, the plaintiff appealed.\nJohnson, Hedgpeth, Biggs & Campbell by I. Murchison Biggs for plaintiff appellant.\nNo counsel of record for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}