{
  "id": 8651303,
  "name": "A. C. ROBERTS et al. v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Richmond & Danville Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "670",
  "last_page": "671",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 670"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682942
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N. C., 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0370-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2443,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.83799411358057e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5337517747173677
    },
    "sha256": "df6aa622010516375a52ddbb229bedf4fb56237f571af26e66cbbf1fc156bbd6",
    "simhash": "1:a1bbd3b97a35f5f3",
    "word_count": 415
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. C. ROBERTS et al. v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, C. J.\nafter stating the facts: The obvious purpose of the evidence rejected was to prove the special contract of the defendant to supply certain cars at the time and place specified in the complaint, and that it failed to do so. The evidence was clearly relevant and competent for that purpose, and we are at a loss to see the ground of objection to it. Unquestionably, the statute (The Code, \u00a7590) did not' apply, as seems to have been supposed. The plaintiffs (the \u25a0witness was one them) did not derive their \u201cinterest or title,\u201d or claim, from the deceased agent of defendant, by assignment or otherwise. That agent was a third party, and on the same footing as any other person having no interest in the present cause of action. Howerton v. Lattimer, 68 N. C., 370; Thomas v. Kelley, 74 N. C., 416; Molyneux v. Huey, 81 N. C , 106.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Ben. Posey and Theo. F. Davidson, for plaintiffs.",
      "\u00bfIr. F. II. Busbee, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. C. ROBERTS et al. v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.\nWitnesses \u2014 Competency, The Code, \u00a7590.\nPlaintiff is a competent witness to testify as to a contract made with a deceased agent of. a railroad company, in regard to the company furnishing cars for the transportation of plaintiff\u2019s cattle.\nCivil action, tried before Brown, J., at Spring Term, 1891, of Cherokee Superior Court.\nThe plaintiffs alleged, as one cause of action, that the defendant agreed to have in readiness and supply them with certain cars at a time and place specified, in which certain cattle were to be transported over the defendant\u2019s railroad to a place specified; that the defendant failed to keep and perform its agreement, etc., whereby the plaintiff sustained damage, etc.\nThe defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint.\nThis, among other issues, was submitted to the jury\u2014\n\u201c 2. If so, did the defendant fail to perform its contract as alleged in the complaint ? \u201d\nOn the trial, a witness for the plaintiffs (one of them) testified, among other things, as follows: \u201cI made an agreement with defendant\u2019s agent a*t Jarrett\u2019s station to ship them (the cattle). I made a bargain with him ; I think his name was Buchanan.\u201d\n\u201cThe defendant objected to any evidence on part of the plaintiffs to this transaction with the agent Buchanan, upon the ground that Buchanan is dead.\u201d\nThe objection was sustained, and the plaintiffs excepted.\nThe plaintiffs submitted to a judgment of nonsuit, and appealed.\nMessrs. Ben. Posey and Theo. F. Davidson, for plaintiffs.\n\u00bfIr. F. II. Busbee, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0670-01",
  "first_page_order": 704,
  "last_page_order": 705
}