{
  "id": 8556462,
  "name": "INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. C. D. ELKS, D/B/A C. D. ELKS TRUCK LINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Invesco Financial Services, Inc. v. Elks",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 762SC38",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 512"
    }
  ],
  "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": 152,
    "char_count": 2059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.617,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0131033812585636e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5427005589901187
    },
    "sha256": "75ec4fab3de5b2187b8f3f570cc82ce3470404a7464526f1715af8e89fadfc6c",
    "simhash": "1:59daebebb737d0a8",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. C. D. ELKS, D/B/A C. D. ELKS TRUCK LINE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThis is an action to recover the balance due by defendant on a contract in connection with his purchase of a truck. The verdict was for the plaintiff in the amount sued for.\nThe tenth assignment of error is the only one brought forward on appeal. It presents defendant\u2019s exception to the denial of his motion to strike testimony of plaintiff\u2019s witness relating to the amount owed plaintiff by defendant as reflected in plaintiff\u2019s records. On page 18 of the record it appears that the witness testified that the balance due was $8,134.58. That testimony and other testimony of the evidence relating to the account was admitted without objection. Thereafter, on cross-examination, defendant elicited testimony calculated to show that the witness was not familiar with the records about which he testified. Defendant\u2019s motion to \u201cstrike all his testimony\u201d was denied.\nWhere, as here, testimony is first admitted without objection, a subsequent motion to strike the testimony is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion has been shown. The conflicts in the witness\u2019 testimony went to his credibility for resolution by the jury.\nDefendant brings forward only one exception and that one fails to show prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMullan & Knott, by Lee E. Knott, Jr., for 'plaintiff ap-pellee.",
      "Leroy Scott and Stephen A. Graves, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "INVESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. C. D. ELKS, D/B/A C. D. ELKS TRUCK LINE\nNo. 762SC38\n(Filed 19 May 1976)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 30\u2014 testimony admitted without objection \u2014 subsequent motion to strike\nWhere testimony is first admitted without objection, a subsequent motion to strike the testimony is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion has been shown.\nAppeal by defendant from Walker, Judge. Judgment entered 15 October 1975 in Superior Court, Beaufort County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 May 1976.\nMcMullan & Knott, by Lee E. Knott, Jr., for 'plaintiff ap-pellee.\nLeroy Scott and Stephen A. Graves, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 545
}