{
  "id": 11270902,
  "name": "ARMSTRONG, CATOR & CO. v. D. N. LONON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Armstrong v. Lonon",
  "decision_date": "1908-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. 434"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 N. C., 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661138
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N. C., 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2612,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.1023709228504495e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8594306077304121
    },
    "sha256": "d9d4585746cbb39f0984dc8a02a96c636860063f46fada52b24527c62c019cd0",
    "simhash": "1:48206ea80a74d55e",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARMSTRONG, CATOR & CO. v. D. N. LONON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have examined the record and exceptions and the Judge\u2019s charge in this case, and find no reversible error. There is only one assignment of error relating to the testimony taken or rejected, and that is without merit. The other assignments of error relate to prayers for instruction and to the charge of the Court. There is evidence upon the part of plaintiff, in the deposition of Cator, as well as the evidence offered by defendant, that there was a dispute, or at least some misunderstanding in regard to one item in the account, which amounted to the sum now claimed.. The check indicated on its face that it was sent in full payment to date thereof and while this is not, under the circumstances of this case, conclusive, yet the receipt of it by the plaintiffs, their endorsement of it and retention of the money, is sufficient evidence to go to the jury that it was sent and received as a full payment and discharge of all indebtedness of defendant to plaintiffs, and so intended.\nIn charging the jury we think his Honor followed the principles laid down in Petit v. Woodlief, 115 N. C., 125; Boykin v. Buie, 109 N. C., 503; Koonce v. Russell, 103 N. C., 179; Pruden v. R. R., 121 N. C., p. 511, and in his instructions and those refused we find no error that necessitates another trial.\nThe case of Kerr v. Saunders, 122 N. C., 635, not cited in either brief, is very much in point.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pless & Winborne for plaintiffs.",
      "J. L. 0. Bird for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARMSTRONG, CATOR & CO. v. D. N. LONON.\n(Filed 16 December, 1908).\nIn this case there was evidence of an item of account between plaintiff and defendant, amounting to the sum in controversy, and defendant sent check \u201cin full of account,\u201d not inclusive of the amount claimed by plaintiff, which plaintiff received, endorsed and kept the money on. Held,, evidence sufficient, in this case, of the intent of full payment and discharge to go to the jury.\nActioN, tried before Ferguson, J., and a jury, September Term, 1908, of McDowjsll, on appeal from a Justice\u2019s court.\nThe action is brought to recover a balance due on verified account of $49.68.\nThe defendant pleaded a payment of $29.18 on 6 July, 1906, by check, as follows:\n\u201cMaRioN, N. C., 6 July, 1906.\nPay to the order of Armstrong, Oator & Co. $29.18 (twenty-nine 18-100 dollars).\nTo Merchants & Farmers Bank, Marion, N. C. (In full to date).\nD. N. LonoN.\"\nThe check was endorsed to plaintiffs and duly paid.\nThe Court submitted this issue to the jury: Is the defendant. indebted to the plaintiffs and, if so, in what amount? \u201cNo.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered plaintiffs appealed.\nPless & Winborne for plaintiffs.\nJ. L. 0. Bird for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 469
}