{
  "id": 8658848,
  "name": "SHUTE v. DICKSON COTTON MILLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shute v. Dickson Cotton Mills",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. 271"
    }
  ],
  "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": 158,
    "char_count": 2002,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34797897483598467
    },
    "sha256": "e9cc988e0b9ccf767f63133f04f737b1e13f5118fc14a3ee38a8217c5fb29ee0",
    "simhash": "1:5fb2e104691cb6e9",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:22:40.266480+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SHUTE v. DICKSON COTTON MILLS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis was an action for the recovery of balance due on sale of brick. The contract was for \u201ctwo thirds hard and one-third soft, kiln-run\u201d at $4.35 per M f. o. b. The defence is that more than one-third were soft brick and that a large proportion of them were almost unburnt and hence worthless. There was contradictory evidence on this point. The court charged the jury that \u201cunder the contract if the jury, should find from the evidence that the term \u2018kiln-run\u2019 meant all brick between the casings, then defendant was bound to take and pay for all between the casings, including bats and soft brick. Defendant was not bound to' take soft brick that had never been burned at all.\u201d Defendant excepted.\nThere was error. This instruction gave to the word \u201ckiln-run\u201d a meaning that destroyed entirely the other words \u201ctwo-thirds har-d and one-third soft.\u201d Construing the whole sentence the contract was that the defendant was to take all between casings i. e. including bats, where a brick was not broken into more than two pieces (on the evidence) but none the less the proportion was not to exceed one soft brick for two hard, and whatever the brick delivered lacked of being as valuable as if they had been in that proportion, entitles the defendant to an abatement in the recovery to that extent.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Redwine & Stack, for the plaintiff.",
      "Adams & Jerome, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHUTE v. DICKSON COTTON MILLS.\n(Filed March 31, 1903.)\nCONTRACTS \u2014 Construction\u2014Brick\u2014Sales.\nA contract for the sale of brick, two-thirds hard and one-third soft, kiln run, does not require the purchaser to take the brick if the proportion is more than one soft for two hard brick, and if the proportion of soft brick delivered is greater he is entitled to an abatement from the price.\nActioN by J. Shute & Son against the Dickson Cotton Mill, beard by Judge W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson and a jury, at August Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of UNION County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nRedwine & Stack, for the plaintiff.\nAdams & Jerome, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 321,
  "last_page_order": 322
}