{
  "id": 8662110,
  "name": "A. Z. ROBERTS v. W. R. ROBERTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1898-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "782",
  "last_page": "783",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. 782"
    }
  ],
  "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": "95 N. C., 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274568
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0479-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20770129841546747
    },
    "sha256": "7476ed42d33f6147014b86d8a6f7f4e35cd3228ef457a43a11b64bd9a01a7ec1",
    "simhash": "1:132ed7b5fc86413e",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:06:10.161321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. Z. ROBERTS v. W. R. ROBERTS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Fairoloth, 0. J.:\nThe plaintiff sues on two notes with one credit on each. The defendant averred that he had made other payments in goods, work, etc., which are not credited on the notes. Each party introduced evidence on said averred payments, and the Court submitted the following and only issue: \u201cIs the defendant, W. R. Roberts, indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount?\u201d Answer. \u201cThe face of the notes, with interest, less the credits.\u201d\nThe only exception by the defendant is to the judgment, he contending that the verdict was too indefinite to warrant any judgment. What then does \u201cless the credits\u201d mean? Our construction is that it means the credits on the notes. To draw the judgment, only a calculation was necessary, which was done by his Honor. Id certum est quod cerium reddi potest. Defendant relied on Morrison v. Watson, 95 N. C., 479, but it does not fit his case. There were several issues and the answers were inconsistent. The Court said: \u201cIf there be an irreconcilable conflict in the findings of the jury upon the issues submitted or between the verdict and the judgment, a new trial will be awarded.\u201d If the jury intended other credits it is reasonable to suppose that they would have specified those allowed and the amount. Those endorsed were specific enough. The judgment is agreeable to the verdict.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Fairoloth, 0. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. G. S. Ferguson for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. J. W. Cooper for defendants (appellants)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. Z. ROBERTS v. W. R. ROBERTS.\n(Decided May 24, 1898).\nAction on Note \u2014 Verdict\u2014Certainty of Verdict. \u25a0\nIn the trial of an action in which the defendant claimed to be entitled to credits in addition to those entered on the notes sued on, the response of the jury to the issue, \u201cIs defendant indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount?\u201d was \u201cThe face of the notes, with interest, less credits.\u201d Held, that the verdict was not indefinite, but clearly meant that the credits allowed were those endorsed upon the notes.\nCivil action tried before Norwood, J., and a jury at Eall Term, 1897, of Oheroicee Superior Court. The facts are stated in the opinion. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nMr. G. S. Ferguson for plaintiff.\nMr. J. W. Cooper for defendants (appellants)."
  },
  "file_name": "0782-01",
  "first_page_order": 814,
  "last_page_order": 815
}