{
  "id": 8658649,
  "name": "BRITE v. MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brite v. Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1901-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 34"
    }
  ],
  "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": 261,
    "char_count": 3601,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.419,
    "sha256": "0eac347a90dd7a8e8524ded0dc37305020b7f900aac2ae65b1fd283096190bc5",
    "simhash": "1:da71f8190998ede1",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRITE v. MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MoNtgomeRt, J.\nThe original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, under which the plaintiff was made the agent of the defendant to sell fertilizers on commission, and for an alleged breach of which, by the defendant, the plaintiff has brought this action, is in writing with the exception of the quantity of fertilizers to be sold. TJpon the trial the plaintiff introduced a batch of letters, from the defendant to prove that the quantity of fertilizers was after-wards agreed to be one hundred tons, and he also testified that on December 20, 1895, he wrote to the defendants ordering one hundred tons. In one of the. letters referred to, of date December 8, 1895, the defendant wrote: ' \u201cWe will ship you the 100 tons of goods as follows,\u201d and then follows the manner and terms on which the agent was to sell to his customers. On the 23d of December, 1895, the defendant, in one of the letters, said: \u201cWe are thinking of sending yon the 100 tons * * * .\u201d In another of the letters, dated December 31, 1895, the defendant wrote (as the plaintiff testified on the trial, in answer to his letter of the 29th, \u25a0of the same month) : \u201cAll right, but we want to ship the goods in one lot from here, as we made prices on a basis of \u25a0one dollar freight from Baltimore, \u2022 and we have to ship in lots of 10 to 100 tons to get the rate.\u201d On the cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that he wrote to the defendant on January 3 following, a letter in these words: \u201cYours of the 31st received, and contents noted. Will say you can ship me 65 tons of cotton, corn, etc., and five tons of dissolved bone phosphate goods. You can ship them to New Bern and deliver them to the Eastern Dispatch Line, and then I can take charge of them and have them shipped where I want them. I have made arrangements to get them shipped from New Bern to where I want them to go, and enclosed find $5 for which give me credit on my note. Hoping this will be all right. Let me hear from you sooni; you can ship any time, but try and ship by the 20th.\u201d\nAmongst other instructions asked by defendant\u2019s counsel was one that the jury be told that \u201cthere was no evidence that defendant contracted for a larger number of tons than' 75 tons shipped.\u201d The case was made up' by his Honor, counsel having disagreed, and his Honor states that -the instruction was1 modified and given in the general charge. We' have examined' very carefully the charge, and we find no allusion'-to the instruction directly or as a matter of infer-\u00e9nce. We think it ought to have been given as requested. The entire correspondence, undisputed and admitted, shows what the contract was; and that being so, its construction' was a matter of law. The defendant\u2019s letter of December 31st and the plaintiff\u2019s letter of January 3d, were the termination of the correspondence concerning the quantity to bo delivered under the contract, and settled that matter.\nThe defendant\u2019s second and third prayers for instruction were properly refused and he got the benefit of the fifth in the general charge.\nNew trial",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MoNtgomeRt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Simmons & Ward, for the plaintiff.",
      "W. D. Mclver, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRITE v. MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed September 18, 1901.)\nCONTRACT \u2014 Questions for Court.\nWhere, in an action for breach of contract, the correspondence between the parties, offered in evidence, shows the contract, its construction is a matter of law.\nActioN by C. E. Brite against the Mount Airy Manufacturing Co., heard by Judge T. A. McNeill and a jury, at Fall Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Pamlico County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nSimmons & Ward, for the plaintiff.\nW. D. Mclver, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}