{
  "id": 8523320,
  "name": "P. D. GOFORTH and NORRIS MAX WILSON, a Partnership d/b/a TRI-COUNTY TIRE COMPANY v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., a Member of the Hartford Insurance Group",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goforth v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.",
  "decision_date": "1983-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8224DC436",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 617"
    }
  ],
  "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": "270 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "381"
        },
        {
          "page": "382"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "361-62"
        },
        {
          "page": "363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 443",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "445"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567731
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "488"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0486-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.787,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2055189317987265
    },
    "sha256": "a04fb1cf8658c40c646c3eaed5fa01f599c71760cfc4ed81e7308d90e334278d",
    "simhash": "1:9be5531d1ca658c4",
    "word_count": 590
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "P. D. GOFORTH and NORRIS MAX WILSON, a Partnership d/b/a TRI-COUNTY TIRE COMPANY v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., a Member of the Hartford Insurance Group"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nSummary judgment on the issue of liability, reserving for trial the issue of damages, is not immediately appealable. Tridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979).\nIn Tridyn, the Court quoted with approval from Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E. 2d 377, 381 (1950):\n\u201cA final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. . . . An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u201d\nTridyn Industries v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 296 N.C. at 488, 251 S.E. 2d at 445.\n\u201cThese rules are designed to prevent fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice and to ensure that the trial divisions fully and finally dispose of the case before an appeal can be heard.\u201d Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E. 2d 431, 434 (1980). \u201cThere is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders.\u201d Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. at 363, 57 S.E. 2d at 382.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 election to label a second cause of action as one for a declaratory judgment does not alter the result we are compelled to reach. Defendant\u2019s liability on the policy was the same issue the court had to resolve in the first cause of action.\nFor the reasons stated, we are required to dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges WEBB and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dennis L. Howell, for plaintiff appellees.",
      "James F. Blue III, by James F. Blue III, and Sheila Felleratk, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "P. D. GOFORTH and NORRIS MAX WILSON, a Partnership d/b/a TRI-COUNTY TIRE COMPANY v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., a Member of the Hartford Insurance Group\nNo. 8224DC436\n(Filed 5 April 1983)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2\u2014 summary judgment determining liability \u2014 issue of damages reserved for trial \u2014 appeal premature\nThe trial court\u2019s order allowing plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant\u2019s liability under an insurance policy and reserving for trial the issue of damages was not immediately appealable.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Lyerly, Judge. Judgment entered 23 December 1981 in District Court, MITCHELL County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1983.\nPlaintiffs, operating as a partnership, are in the business of selling and installing tires. They sue on a liability insurance policy issued by defendant.\nPlaintiffs damaged one of their customer\u2019s trucks while installing tires on the truck. They seek to recover damages they allegedly suffered as a result of the claim against them by the customer. They allege defendant refused to honor the claim after demand. Although the amount of the claim was not alleged, they prayed for judgment in the amount of $5,000.00. They also set out a second cause of action in which they requested a judgment declaring defendant liable under the policy of insurance upon which they sued in the first cause of action.\nThe court entered summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of liability under the policy in the first cause of action and also entered judgment declaring defendant liable under the policy in the second cause of action. The court ordered trial by jury on the issue of damages.\nDennis L. Howell, for plaintiff appellees.\nJames F. Blue III, by James F. Blue III, and Sheila Felleratk, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 650
}