{
  "id": 8652822,
  "name": "SOUTHERN FERTILIZER COMPANY v. C. E. MOORE, et al., Executors of MOSES MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Fertilizer Co. v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 191"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 3289,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3286541029998274
    },
    "sha256": "2fb3282a39dd8b0a7c87885c2cd1ad137067148f0444d1b80d4e0dcab85e8ffc",
    "simhash": "1:6d6264a6dc203ada",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN FERTILIZER COMPANY v. C. E. MOORE, et al., Executors of MOSES MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.:\nThis action is brought to recover the proceeds of the sales of fertilizers for the years 1885 and 1887. The claim for 1885 is barred by the \u2018Statute of Limitations.\nMoses Moore and his son M. R. Moore contracted in writing in February, 1885, to sell plaintiff\u2019s fertilizers as their agents, and it was stipulated in the contract, signed by all the contracting parties, that \u201c this contract to remain in force until cancelled.\u201d On December 16, 1885, M. B. Moore wrote to the plaintiff, \u201c I wish to sell your fertilizers again next year and prefer selling myself \u2014 my father is getting very old and does not care to have his name connected with the agency,\u201d and that he would like to have the advertising matter made out in his name. On the next day the plaintiff replied to M. B. Moore: \u201c Let the contract stand exactly as it is\u201d and there will be no trouble in putting on the advertising matter your name, \u201c assuming it is your father\u2019s desire.\u201d Other correspondence %vas had during the year 1886 about the business. Some of the letters before us, written by plaintiff, were addressed to M. B. and Moses Moore on their face. No communication between Moses Moore and the plaintiffs appears in the case. Whether the letter of December 16, 1885, was sent by M. B. Moore as the agent of his father, does not appear, or whether it was done on his own motion. Iiis own declaration would not be sufficient to establish agency. We have looked through the evidence and conclude that the contract was not cancelled as to the plaintiff, whatever the father and son may have intended as between themselves, and that defendants are liable according to the case as now presented.\nJudgment Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. H. G. Connor and F. A. - Woodard, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Messrs. Jacob Battle and R. 0. Burton, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN FERTILIZER COMPANY v. C. E. MOORE, et al., Executors of MOSES MOORE.\nContract \u2014 Cancellation\u2014Evidence.\nWhere, in the trial of an action on a contract for the sale of fertilizers, it appeared that M. and his son were agents for the plaintiffs under a contract which contained the provision that \u201cthis contract shall remain in force until cancelled,\u201d and that on December 16,1885, the son wrote to plaintiffs, \u201c I wish to sell your fertilizers again next year, and prefer selling myself. My father is getting very old, and does not care to have his name connected with the agency,\u201d and that he would like to have the advertising matter in his name, to which the plaintiff replied, \u201cLet the contract stand exactly as it is,\u201d and there will be no trouble as to the advertising matter, \u201cassuming that it is your father\u2019s desire,\u201d and it also appeared that some of the letters written by plaintiff were addressed to father and son, though no communication passed otherwise between ,the father and the plaintiff ; Held, that the evidence did not prove a cancellation of the contract.\nCivil ACTION, beard before Coble, J., at Spring Term, 1895, of Nash Superior Court, on plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to report of Thomas W. Battle, Referee, who found as a conclusion of law that the contract referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Faibcloth was not a continuing one. The \u2022 exceptions were ' overruled, and from the judgment for defendant the plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs. H. G. Connor and F. A. - Woodard, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMessrs. Jacob Battle and R. 0. Burton, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 227,
  "last_page_order": 228
}