{
  "id": 8556031,
  "name": "WILKES HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COLIN RUNDLE and wife, MARY ANN RUNDLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilkes Home Improvement Co. v. Rundle",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7323DC8",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "465",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 464"
    }
  ],
  "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": 201,
    "char_count": 2357,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "sha256": "7cc035d497b2de93a4fdbaa43c766d235b118e9d564f30ee523ba880059919f3",
    "simhash": "1:087d970de24885d7",
    "word_count": 382
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILKES HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COLIN RUNDLE and wife, MARY ANN RUNDLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nPlaintiff has brought forward and argued four assignments of error to the trial judge\u2019s charge to the jury. While we recognize defects in the charge, plaintiff has failed to show in what way the defects were prejudicial to it. \u201cThe burden is on appellant not only to show error, but that the alleged error was prejudicial and amounted to the denial of some substantial right.\u201d 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 46, p. 190.\nIn our opinion the jury was given ample opportunity to consider evidence of both parties. It has weighed that evidence and rendered a verdict favorable to defendant. We perceive no miscarriage of justice. There were no complicated legal principles involved in this case, and we feel the jury clearly understood the controversy.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whicker, Vannoy & Moore, by J. Gary Vannoy, for plaintiff.",
      "Joe O. Brewer for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILKES HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COLIN RUNDLE and wife, MARY ANN RUNDLE\nNo. 7323DC8\n(Filed 28 February 1973)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Osborne, District Judge, May 1972 Session of District Court held in WILKES County.\nThis action is to recover the balance due on a contract for remodeling done to defendants\u2019 residence.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement for certain modifications and improvements to be made to defendants\u2019 home; that the contract price was $8,466.92; that plaintiff performed approximately seventy-five percent of the work but was prevented by defendants from completing the job; that defendants paid $4,000.00, but have refused to pay the balance of $4,466.92.\nDefendants\u2019 evidence tended to show that plaintiff agreed to complete the work in six to eight weeks; that the workmen would not stay on the job; that much of the work was inferior and had to be reworked; that defendants paid plaintiff $4,000.00, but when four months passed and the work was not completed they stopped plaintiff from performing further; that the work was about fifty percent completed when defendants stopped plaintiff; that defendants completed the work at a cost of about $3,000.00 plus defendants\u2019 labor.\nOne issue was submitted to and answered by the jury as follows: \u201cWhat amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: None.\u201d Plaintiff appealed.\nWhicker, Vannoy & Moore, by J. Gary Vannoy, for plaintiff.\nJoe O. Brewer for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 488,
  "last_page_order": 489
}