{
  "id": 11269552,
  "name": "BRIDGEPORT ORGAN COMPANY v. GEORGE H. SNYDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bridgeport Organ Co. v. Snyder",
  "decision_date": "1908-04-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 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": [
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.095626876101069e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5058738945784098
    },
    "sha256": "b7b605a5768941aabbfd49153d4dc7f587ebb01ea50e9cf3cad4a1ba6aebbf2e",
    "simhash": "1:9eaa3c051c0708bf",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRIDGEPORT ORGAN COMPANY v. GEORGE H. SNYDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbowN, J.\nTbe plaintiff resorted to tbe ancillary proceeding of arrest and bail, and in order to entitle him to execution against tbe person it was encumbent upon it to secure an affirmative answer to tbe first issue. His Honor instructed tbe jury that 'there was no evidence of a fraudulent conversion and directed them to answer tbe first issue \u201cNo,\u201d to which plaintiff excepted. We think the court erred in withdrawing tbe first issue from the consideration of the jury by directing them to answer it \u201cNo.\u201d He should have submitted the issue to them with appropriate instruction, for we think there is evidence tending to prove a fraudulent detention and conversion of the plaintiff\u2019s property by the defendant. The evidence tends to prove that defendant .was the agent of plaintiff and had in his hands for sale for plaintiff a number of organs, and also had in his possession for collection notes and mortgages belonging to plaintiff. The evidence tends to prove that he has refused and failed to account to plaintiff for the property or the proceeds thereof, although such accounting has been repeatedly demanded.\nThe fact that the defendant detains the \u00a1oroperty and refuses to deliver it to the plaintiff, who he admits is the true owner, is evidence of a breach of trust and of a wrongful and fraudulent conversion. In a civil action for the wrongful and fraudulent conversion of property by an agent the question of intent is not material. If such conversion took place the plaintiff is entitled to his remedy. The intent does not enter into it. \u201cGood intentions,\u201d says Mr. Justice Bwrwell, \u201cdo not at all lessen the wrongfulness of a breach of trust; or, rather, the law will not allow one to say that he violated its plain precepts with good intentions.\u201d Boykin v. Maddrey, 114 N. C., 100; Fertilizer Co. v. Little, 118 N. C., 817; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C., 70.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Q. K. Nimochs for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRIDGEPORT ORGAN COMPANY v. GEORGE H. SNYDER.\n(Filed 1 April, 1908).\n1. Frincipal and Agent \u2014 Conversion\u2014Evidence\u2014Verdict Directing.\nIn an action for the defendant\u2019s wrongful and fraudulent conversion to his own use of notes, liens, accounts and cash collections of the plaintiff as its agent, it was error for the court below to direct a verdict upon the issue in defendant\u2019s favor, under evidence tending to show that defendant was plaintiff\u2019s agent and had organs in his hands for sale for it, and also for collection its notes and mortgages, and refused to account for them when repeatedly requested to do so.\n2. Same \u2014 Intent.\nThe question of intent is not material in a civil action brought by the principal against his agent for wrongful and fraudulent conversion. Evidence of such breach of trust is sufficient.\nActioN tried, before J ones, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1907, of CUMBERLAND.\nTbe following issues were submitted to tbe jury: .\n\u201c1. Did tbe defendant wrongfully and fraudulently' convert to bis own use the notes, liens, accounts and cash collections of tbe plaintiff, as alleged?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n\u201c2. What damage has tbe plaintiff sustained ?\u201d Answer: \u201cEour hundred and fifty-eight dollars and fifty-one cents, with interest from 17 September, 1906.\u201d\nTbe court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $458.51, with interest from 18 September, 1906. The plaintiff appealed.\nQ. K. Nimochs for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 309,
  "last_page_order": 310
}