{
  "id": 8658821,
  "name": "RUSSELL and NICHOLSON v. COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Commissioners of Iredell County",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 N.C. 264"
    }
  ],
  "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": 247,
    "char_count": 4397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27458454141534894
    },
    "sha256": "39bdfa67129ab5585b59a10527c40dbcb972846f98e0d3e196189e552da5f340",
    "simhash": "1:7ac7b44cf3120a99",
    "word_count": 746
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:57:12.442116+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RUSSELL and NICHOLSON v. COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.:\nThis case concerns the building of a bridge. The defendants ordered the supervisors of Statesville Township to get up plans and specifications and let out the building of a bridge to the lowest bidder across the Salisbury branch on the Salisbury road, which was done and the plaintiffs were the lowest bidders and got the contract at $100.\nThe Chairman of the Board of Supervisors testified that \u201cthe bridge has been completed and not paid for. It was completed as early as could be. The bridge was and is being used by the public, and did immediately after it was finished. I had plans prepared. There is no variation in the building with one exception. The plan was to let plank project three feet. Instead of that, I asked them to have it bolted to the abutments \u2014to the foundation that made it more stable and firm. It required no more labor, but additional expense of both. It was- a substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. . . . Plans called for mud-sills to be two feet below the water. Don\u2019t think it is quite two feet; it goes to the rock, to a solid foundation.\u201d The plaintiffs testified that he built it according to contract. Both parties introduced other evidence and witnesses tending to sustain their contentions. The Court submitted this issue, \u201cWas the bridge built substantially according to the plans a.nd specifications agreed to?\u201d which the jury answered \u201cyes\u201d, and that plaintiffs are entitled to the contract price. There was judgment accordingly.\nHis Honor charged the' jury: \u201cI shall leave the question with the jury as to whether the bridge was built substantially according to the contract . . . . ; that it was not so much a question as to whether it was a good bridge, but is it a substantial compliance with the terms agreed on, in quality and kind.\u201d He also charged that if it is so far different from the contract as not to answer the purpose for which it was intended, the plaintiffs could not recover.\nThe defendants filed exceptions to the evidence, to the issue, to the charge and to the judgment, but their real contention is that the Court erred in leaving the question of substantial compliance with the jury.\nWhat is a contract and the effect of a contract, when the terms are clear, from which only conclusion can be drawn, whether written or oral is a question of law; but whether the contract, has been performed, when the evidence is conflicting, is a different question. \u2022 Whether substantial compliance has occurred under proper instructions of the Court, we think is a question of fact for the jury.\nLooking at the findings and the charge, under the rules above stated, we see no error and think substantial justice has been done, and it will be so certified.\nAffirmed.'",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. B. F. Long and Armfield, & Turner, for defendants (appellants).",
      "No counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUSSELL and NICHOLSON v. COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY.\n(Decided December 13, 1898 )\nContract \u2014 Performance.\n1. Wliat is a contract and its effect, when the terms are clear, whether written or oral, is a question of law.\n2. Whether there has been substantial compliance is a question of fact \u2022 for the jury under proper instructions from the Court.\nCivil action for stipulated price, $100 for building a County bridge, tried on appeal from Justices\u2019 Court, before Allen, J., at August Term, 1898, of Superior Court of Iredell County.\nThe plaintiffs claimed that they had built the bridge according to contract and were entitled to the contract price.\nThe defendants deny that the bridge was completed according to contract, and plead a counter-claim, by way of damages, of $40.\nTwo issues were submitted by the Court:\n1. Was the bridge built substantially according to the plans and specifications agreed on?\n2. If not, what damage has the defendants sustained?\nThe evidence was conflicting.\nHis Honor charged the jury: .\n\u2018 T shall leave the question with the jury as to whether the bridge was built substantially according to the contract.\u201d\n\u201cIt was not so much a question as to whether it was a good bridge, but is it a substantial compliance with the terms agreed on in quality and kind? If it is so far different from the contract, as not to answer the purpose for which it was intended, the plaintiffs could not recover.\u201d\nThe defendants excepted.\nVerdict: Yes, on the 1st issue.\nJudgment for plaintiffs for contract price.\nAppeal by defendants.\nMessrs. B. F. Long and Armfield, & Turner, for defendants (appellants).\nNo counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 290,
  "last_page_order": 293
}