{
  "id": 8554202,
  "name": "EDWARD HOMER WATTS v. FORREST E. TODD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watts v. Todd",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7426DC636",
  "first_page": "737",
  "last_page": "739",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 737"
    }
  ],
  "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": "163 S.E. 2d 100",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552812
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.608,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059851751974729
    },
    "sha256": "f405205ead3eccd793895562d59ee2fe1959c44ac43e08411435d689970fadf4",
    "simhash": "1:3bc20243b3007bef",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDWARD HOMER WATTS v. FORREST E. TODD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nThe undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff had taken possession of the collateral after defendant\u2019s default on the note. Defendant contends the trial court erred in not admitting into evidence defendant\u2019s testimony placing a value on the collateral. The testimony by defendant shows he was familiar with the collateral and has such knowledge and experience as to enable him to intelligently place a value on the collateral. \u201cIt is not necessary that a witness be an expert in order to give his opinion as to value.\u201d State v. Cotten, 2 N.C. App. 305, 163 S.E. 2d 100 (1968). \u201c[I]t is enough that he is familiar with the thing upon which he professes to put a value and has such knowledge and experience as to enable him intelligently to place a value on it.\u201d 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Brandis\u2019 Revision, \u00a7 128, p. 408. This assignment of -error is sustained and a new trial is ordered.\nDiscussion of defendant\u2019s other assignments of error is unnecessary since the asserted errors to which they relate may not recur at the next trial.\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Peter L. Reynolds, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Robertson & Brwnley, by Richard H. Robertson, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWARD HOMER WATTS v. FORREST E. TODD\nNo. 7426DC636\n(Filed 20 November 1974)\nEvidence \u00a7 45 \u2014 opinion testimony as to value \u2014 exclusion erroneous\nIn an action to recover on a note a sum due from sale of a business where defendant claimed that plaintiff had taken possession of collateral without applying the proceeds therefrom toward the debt, the trial court erred in not admitting defendant\u2019s testimony placing a value on the collateral.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnson, Judge, 18 February 1974 Session of Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 15 October 1974.\nPlaintiff sued to recover on a note wherein the defendant, as maker of the note, was obligated to pay plaintiff $3000.00. This sum represented the balance due plaintiff from the sale of a business to defendant. Contemporaneous with the note, an agreement was executed granting plaintiff a security interest in various items of equipment located at the business premises. Defendant answered the complaint alleging in part that plaintiff had taken possession of the collateral without applying the proceeds therefrom toward the debt as provided in the security agreement.\nPeter L. Reynolds, for plaintiff appellee.\nRobertson & Brwnley, by Richard H. Robertson, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0737-01",
  "first_page_order": 765,
  "last_page_order": 767
}