{
  "id": 11271006,
  "name": "W. C. WILCOX v. DURHAM AND CHARLOTTE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilcox v. Durham & Charlotte Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1910-04-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "316",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 316"
    }
  ],
  "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": 251,
    "char_count": 3922,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34797800952874086
    },
    "sha256": "cced15cf26d24e3f9669dc763544f089336c7713ec4fe425a90647303dd08faf",
    "simhash": "1:4fc1b2435ae9fbd9",
    "word_count": 674
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. WILCOX v. DURHAM AND CHARLOTTE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nOn 5 May, 1897, the defendant, through its superintendent, entered into a contract with the plaintiff containing the following provision: \u201cFor and in consideration of the benefits to be derived by the building of a tramroad by the party of the second part, from a point on the line of railroad to a point on the property of the party of the second part, lying on the south side of Richlands Creek, the party of the first part hereby agrees to pay to the party of the second part a sum equivalent to % cent per 100 pounds on all lumber or timber delivered by the aforementioned tramroad from some point hereafter to be located on the so\u00fath side of Richlands Creek.\u201d\nThis action was begun before a justice of the peace for the sum of $200. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff built said tramroad in execution of the terms of said contract and hauled over it 1,108,356 feet of lumber, which he delivered to the defendant, who shipped the same, and that at the rate of compensation prescribed by the contract the plaintiff became entitled to recover the sum of $221.67, but remits all above $200, and the interest on the excess. The defendant demurs: (1) Because it is not alleged that F. D. Jones, superintendent, was authorized to make such contract; (2) that the contract was ultra vires, and in conflict with chapter 320, Laws 1891 (then\u2019in force), and contrary to public policy.\nThe demurrer admits the allegations of the complaint to be true. The complaint alleges the contract was made between the 'defendant and the plaintiff and that in pursuance of it the plaintiff built the tramroad and delivered the lumber, which was hauled over said tramroad in accordance with the terms of the contract. If the superintendent was not authorized to contract for the defendant, that must be set up as a defense in the answer.\nAs to the last ground of the demurrer, it is not averred that the plaintiff transported any of his own lumber over said tramway. If this contract was an attempt to give the plaintiff a rebate which was forbidden by section 4, ch. 320, Laws 1891 (in force at date of this contract), or a discrimination in rates in favor of plaintiff, this does not appear in, nor is it ai fair inference from, the complaint. Such defense can be raised by answer. For all that now appears the cent per 100 pounds\u201d was an allowance to the tramroad for its hauling, which was added to the defendant\u2019s rate from the point where it received this lumber.\nThe court below, therefore, properly overruled the demurrer and gave the defendant leave to answer over. Rev., 506.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. L. Burpis for plaintiff.",
      "II. F. Seawell and Guthrie & Guthrie for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. WILCOX v. DURHAM AND CHARLOTTE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 April, 1910.)\n1. Pleadings \u2014 Demurrer\u2014Principal and Agent \u2014 Allegations Sufficient.\nAs a demurrer to the complaint admits the truth of its allegations, a demurrer thereto on the ground that it was not alleged that the superintendent of a corporation had the power to make contracts of the nature claimed, is bad, the complaint alleging that the contract was made with the corporation.\n2. Pleadings \u2014 Demurrer\u2014Rebate\u2014Discrimination\u2014Connecting Carrier \u2014 Allowance.\nA complaint alleging that defendant railroad company agreed to pay the plaintiff.a stun equivalent to % cent per 100 pounds for lumber delivered to it by the plaintiff\u2019s connecting tramroad for shipment, and th\u00e1t the amount demanded was for lumber thus delivered, a demurrer on the ground that, in effect, it was a rebate or discrimination in rates in plaintiff\u2019s favor, is bad, it not appearing that any of plaintiff\u2019s lumber was embraced in the shipments. Ch. 320, sec. 4, Laws of 1891 (then in force). The demurrer was properly overruled and defendant allowed to answer over. Revisal, 506.\nAppeal from W. J. Adams, J., at September Term, 1909, of Moore.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.\nB. L. Burpis for plaintiff.\nII. F. Seawell and Guthrie & Guthrie for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0316-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 363
}