{
  "id": 8652229,
  "name": "HUGHES v. WAREHOUSE CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hughes v. Warehouse Co.",
  "decision_date": "1905-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "139 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": 239,
    "char_count": 3578,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.70645184869385e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5299585033722043
    },
    "sha256": "95c81935bfa07cde60f4be1688d59b731e4b3311dbe38cba2bb31ae64c9f277e",
    "simhash": "1:8d18b071130f7c18",
    "word_count": 617
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:29.236172+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HUGHES v. WAREHOUSE CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Claee, C. J.\nThis action is upon an alleged guaranty, as proof of which the plaintiff relied upon the following letter:\nSt. Louis, Mo., March 19, 1897.\nMessrs. W. T. Hughes & Co., Louisburg, N. C.:\nGbNtlemen : \u2014 Your letter of' the 11th inst., making inquiry about the general standing of J. E. M. Walker, received. We regard him as a perfectly reliable, trustworthy gentleman, with whom your samples and sales would be entirely safe and doubly so as all tobacco of yours that might be skipped would come direct to Tbe Peper Tobacco Ware-bouse Co., and tbe payment of all sucb tobacco would be made by us to you for all sales. Tours truly,\nNicholas N. Bell, Manager,\nper Hall.\nBell was manager of tbe defendant company. Tbe defendant demurred, giving as its first ground tbat .tbe letter did not constitute a guaranty, and lienee tbe plaintiff\u2019s complaint did not set forth a cause of action, and tbe court below so beld.\nWe do not think tbat tbis letter constituted a guaranty by tbe defendant to Hughes & Co., of payment of all tobacco which they should ship J. E. M. Walker. A guaranty is \u00e1 contract, an aggregatio mentium. Tbis letter is on its face merely a response to a letter of inquiry to ascertain tbe general standing of L E. M. Walker, and not to a request for them to guarantee purchases made by him. Tbe reply contains what was asked for \u2014 information and nothing more. Tbis reply states tbat tbe defendant \u201creg\u00e1rded\u201d Walker as a reliable and trustworthy gentleman, with whom Hughes & Co.\u2019s samples and sales would be entirely safe, and doubly so because Hughes & Co.\u2019s tobacco would come direct to the defendant\u2019s warehouse and payment for all sales of sucb tobacco would be made by tbe defendant to the plaintiffs. Tbis was merely a statement of tbe defendant\u2019s opinion of Walker\u2019s reliability and of the manner in 'which the defendant would handle tbe tobacco and the additional safety this method would be to tbe plaintiff. Besides, there was no consideration for the guaranty. The tobacco was already being shipped to tbe defendant for Walker as it would seem-from tbe letter, and there certainly is no agreement shown to so ship, nor an indication of any benefit to accrue to tbe defendant. Neither in tbe letter nor in tbe attendant circumstances is there anything to justify holding tbis letter to be a guaranty. Tbe purport of tbe letter depends upon its intent, as derived from its perusal; and cases cited upon tbe construction of other papers, differently worded, could be of no assistance to us.\nAs tbe letter is not a guaranty, it becomes entirely unnecessary to consider tbe other exceptions. Tbe judgment sustaining tbe demurrer is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Claee, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. 8. 8pru\u00fcl and W. II. Ruffin for the plaintiff.",
      "T. W. Bickett and 8. P. Galt for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HUGHES v. WAREHOUSE CO.\n(Filed September 26, 1905).\nGuaranty \u2014 D emurrer.\nWhere the defendant, in reply to plaintiff\u2019s letter of inquiry about W, stated that \u201cwe regard W as a reliable and trustworthy gentleman with whom your samples and sales would be entirely safe, and doubly so as all tobacco of yours that might be shipped would come direct to our warehouse, and payment for all such tobacco would be made by us to you for all sales,\u201d held, the defendant\u2019s demurrer on the ground that the letter did not constitute a guaranty was properly sustained.\nActioN by W. T. Hughes & Co. against The Peper Tobacco Warehouse Co., heard by Judge C. M. Ooolce upon the pleadings, at the January Term, 1905., of the Superior Court of Feanelin County. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer, the plaintiff appealed.\nF. 8. 8pru\u00fcl and W. II. Ruffin for the plaintiff.\nT. W. Bickett and 8. P. Galt for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 198
}