{
  "id": 8653767,
  "name": "O. F. WHITE v. LOUIS LIPSITZ",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Lipsitz",
  "decision_date": "1909-09-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "26",
  "last_page": "26",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 26"
    }
  ],
  "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": "136 N. C., 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660746
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1644,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2076207917913361
    },
    "sha256": "e42c89c587c8ba9c954864dc9b124f4947952ffd8a5c39470561df06790a75f6",
    "simhash": "1:3ab70c820c0ea596",
    "word_count": 278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. F. WHITE v. LOUIS LIPSITZ."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe Court has examined the several exceptions arising upon the evidence and to the charge of the court assigned as error. We are of opinion that his Honor committed no error which would warrant us in directing another trial of the issues.\nThe court seems to have proceeded along well-settled principles, as laid down in Avery v. Stewart, 136 N. C., 426, where all the authorities bearing upon questions of the character in this State are collected.\nThe findings of the jury are supported by the evidence and entitle plaintiff to judgment!\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shepherd & Shepherd and Pruden & Pruden for plaintiff.",
      "Winston & Matthews for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. F. WHITE v. LOUIS LIPSITZ.\n(Filed 15 September, 1909.)\nIn tbis appeal there is no error, the trial judge having proceeded along the settled principles as laid down in Avery v. Btewa/rt, 136 N. 0., 426.\nAppeal from Gui\u00f3n, J., Spring Term, 1909, of Bertie.\nThis is an action to convert defendant into a trustee for the plaintiff as to a tract of land.\nThese issues were submitted:\n1. \u201cDid the defendant Lipsitz buy said land in controversy for the plaintiff White and take deed to himself in trust to convey it to plaintiff White upon payment of the purchase money ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. \u201cIf the plaintiff White had such an equity as he alleges, has he by his conduct abandoned and given up the same ?\u201d Answer : \u201cNo.\u201d\n3. \u201cIs the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action barred by the statute of limitations?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n4. \u201cWhat amount is now due by plaintiff upon said purchase price,' if anything.?\u201d Answer: \u201cFifteen hundred and twenty-seven dollars.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nShepherd & Shepherd and Pruden & Pruden for plaintiff.\nWinston & Matthews for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0026-01",
  "first_page_order": 70,
  "last_page_order": 70
}