{
  "id": 8549905,
  "name": "GILBERT KENNEDY, Trading and doing business as Home Furniture Co. v. F. D. TARLTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kennedy v. Tarlton",
  "decision_date": "1971-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7119DC578",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 397"
    }
  ],
  "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 580",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550141
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S.E. 852",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1906,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.C. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252938
      ],
      "year": 1906,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628114
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4055,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.431403558356252e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48431105442826977
    },
    "sha256": "9f803f6f825a4f5a69bdaa6973dc549d03f02db6c09063db0b3f2f2f361a828c",
    "simhash": "1:077af2ae697fbf0c",
    "word_count": 665
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GILBERT KENNEDY, Trading and doing business as Home Furniture Co. v. F. D. TARLTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error, defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error in not sustaining his objection to plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s reading portions of the amended pleadings in his argument to the jury.\nIn jury trials the whole case as well of law as of fact may be argued to the jury. G.S. 84-14; Brown v. Vestal, 231 N.C. 56, 55 S.E. 2d 797 (1949).\nThe trial judge has large discretion in controlling and directing the argument of counsel, but this does not include the right to deprive a litigant of the benefit of counsel\u2019s argument when it is confined to the proper bounds and is addressed to material facts of the case. Puett v. Railroad, 141 N.C. 332, 53 S.E. 852 (1906).\nWe hold that the court did not commit prejudicial error by allowing counsel for plaintiff, over defendant\u2019s objection, to read portions of the final pleadings upon which the case was tried in his argument to the jury. Jackson v. Jones, 1 N.C. App. 71, 159 S.E. 2d 580 (1968). This assignment of error is without merit.\nWe have carefully considered defendant\u2019s three remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit.\nIn the trial below we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. Wade Yates and John N. Ogburn, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Ottway Burton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GILBERT KENNEDY, Trading and doing business as Home Furniture Co. v. F. D. TARLTON\nNo. 7119DC578\n(Filed 15 September 1971)\nTrial \u00a7 11\u2014 jury argument \u2014 reading of portions of pleadings\nThe trial court did not err in allowing counsel for plaintiff, over defendant\u2019s objection, to read in his argument to the jury portions of the final pleadings upon which the case was tried. G.S. 84-14.\nAppeal by defendant from Hammond, District Judge, 19 February 1971 Session of District Court held in Randolph County.\nThis is a civil action wherein the plaintiff Gilbert Kennedy, trading and doing business as Home Furniture Co., seeks to recover $537.91, the balance allegedly due by defendant on the purchase price of certain items and articles of furniture.\nThe plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on 18 December 1962 defendant purchased from John U. Kennedy, trading and doing business as Home Furniture Co., furniture and carpeting for a total price of $1,122.60. The defendant at the time of purchase executed a conditional sales contract which was identified and introduced into evidence as plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A. On 1 October 1968, plaintiff purchased the furniture business from his father, and defendant\u2019s unpaid installment account was assigned to plaintiff. The assignment of the account was made on the reverse side of the conditional sales contract, Exhibit A.\nDefendant\u2019s payments on the account were entered on a ledger sheet which was identified and introduced as plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit B.\nDefendant, in his answer, denied the indebtedness and offered evidence tending to show that he purchased from plaintiff\u2019s father, John U. Kennedy, a certain house and lot in October 1962. Defendant contended that the house did not contain carpeting in living room, hall and den, in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement, and that he is not therefore indebted to plaintiff for the price of the carpet.\nDefendant admitted execution of the conditional sales contract and making the payments credited to the account.\nThe following issues were submitted to and answered by the jury as indicated:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant purchase furniture from John U. Kennedy, trading as Home Furniture Company, as alleged?\nAnswer: Yes.\n2. Was said sale under a conditional sales agreement executed by the parties, as alleged?\nAnswer: Yes.\n3. Was this account and conditional sales agreement assigned by John U. Kennedy to Gilbert Kennedy, as alleged?\nAnswer: Yes.\n4. Is the defendant in default of the payments agreed between the parties, as alleged?\nAnswer: Yes.\n5. In what amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff?\nAnswer: $537.91.\u201d\nFrom judgment entered on the verdict defendant appealed.\nH. Wade Yates and John N. Ogburn, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nOttway Burton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 425
}