{
  "id": 8526909,
  "name": "ALLEN BROWN, trading as A. BROWN AND PARTNERS, Plaintiff v. MTA SCHOOLS, INC., Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. MTA Schools, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1989-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 8818DC1225",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 218"
    }
  ],
  "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": 239,
    "char_count": 3384,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "sha256": "d2cd592b6a9b6bf6f6c95b7cf571957e747ee77a867515dd9c0eaa202cfe8599",
    "simhash": "1:b981e708dc5b90db",
    "word_count": 541
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:12.068465+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BECTON and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALLEN BROWN, trading as A. BROWN AND PARTNERS, Plaintiff v. MTA SCHOOLS, INC., Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nOn 14 October 1985 plaintiff, a Greensboro advertising agency, and defendant, a school for truck drivers and mechanics, entered into a written contract providing that: Plaintiff would be responsible for conceiving, designing and placing all of defendant\u2019s advertising with the media; defendant would pay him $1,700 for the month of October, 1985 and $3,400 each following month the contract remained in effect; it could be terminated by either party giving the other thirty days\u2019 written notice. Plaintiff had already conceived and designed an advertising plan for defendant\u2019s business and immediately placed various advertisements with the media in the Greensboro area; but before the month ended defendant orally informed plaintiff that it was dealing directly with the media and his services were no longer required. Defendant did not give the written notice required by the contract nor did it pay plaintiff anything for his services, though it continued to use plaintiff\u2019s ads through 15 February 1986. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and following a trial by Judge Lowe without a jury, judgment was entered for plaintiff in the amount of $6,500.\nDefendant appellant concedes that it breached the parties\u2019 contract and contends only that the evidence does not support the court\u2019s finding on the damages issue. The contention has no merit. As plaintiff points out: That the unterminated contract valued plaintiff\u2019s services at $3,400 a month is some evidence that his advertising plan was worth that amount, and that defendant used it for four months, while purporting to reject plaintiff\u2019s services, would support a verdict of up to $15,300. But plaintiff\u2019s request that we direct the trial court to either enter judgment for that amount or to retry the damages issue is denied. For plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment; and as our Courts have noted in innumerable decisions errors not timely asserted and pursued in the manner required by our appellate rules cannot be considered. Plaintiff did notice an appeal but he did not perfect it by recording an exception and filing an assignment of error that challenged the correctness of the judgment, as Rule 10, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure requires. No question as to the verdict\u2019s inadequacy having been presented to us, we do not rule on it.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BECTON and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen E. Lawing for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Stern, Graham & Klepfer, by Robert L. Johnston, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLEN BROWN, trading as A. BROWN AND PARTNERS, Plaintiff v. MTA SCHOOLS, INC., Defendant\nNo. 8818DC1225\n(Filed 6 June 1989)\nContracts \u00a7 29\u2014 breach of contract \u2014 evidence of damages \u2014sufficient\nIn an action for breach of contract arising from a contract between a school for truck drivers and mechanics and an advertising agency, there was evidence to support the award of $6,500 in damages in evidence that the contract valued plaintiffs services at $3,400 a month and that defendant used plaintiffs advertising plan for four months while purporting to reject his services. Plaintiffs request that the trial court be directed to enter judgment for $15,300 or retry the damages issue was rejected because plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Lowe, Judge. Judgment entered 27 July 1988 in District Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 May 1989.\nStephen E. Lawing for plaintiff appellee.\nStern, Graham & Klepfer, by Robert L. Johnston, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 249
}