{
  "id": 11272933,
  "name": "DREWRY-HUGHES COMPANY v. B. & S. McDOUGALD, L. A. MONROE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Drewry-Hughes Co. v. B. & S. McDougald",
  "decision_date": "1910-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "759",
  "last_page": "760",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 759"
    }
  ],
  "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": "145 N. C., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35674956339153363
    },
    "sha256": "a6ad26c0a00face5bb941b6ba3f4c4c8fe55683378bc12a4e54799f03ff1656d",
    "simhash": "1:9040d0213e4e746b",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DREWRY-HUGHES COMPANY v. B. & S. McDOUGALD, L. A. MONROE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis cause was before this Court at Fall Term, 1907 (145 N. C., 286). We have examined the record and are of opinion that there was ample evidence to go to the jury that defendant Monroe had given Dun & Co. due notice that he had dissolved or failed to perfect his connection with the McDou-galds. The plaintiff had not at that time become a creditor of the McDougalds, and therefore no direct notice to it or its agents could be given.\nThat is really the only point in this case. We think the exceptions to the evidence are untenable and that the court fairly \u2019 and correctly placed the matter before the jury.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McLean & McLean, J. G. McCormick for plaintiff.",
      "M. L. J ohn, W. H. Neal for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DREWRY-HUGHES COMPANY v. B. & S. McDOUGALD, L. A. MONROE.\n(Filed 13 April, 1910.)\nPartnership \u2014 Dissolution\u2014Notice.\nIt appearing from the record that defendant Monroe had given due notice to plaintiff\u2019s mercantile agency that he had dissolved or failed to perfect his contract of partnership with the other defendant, and that the plaintiff had not, at that time, become a creditor of the firm so as to require direct notice, this, appeal is controlled by the former decision. 145 N. C., 286.\nAppeal from W. J. Adams, J., at October Term, 1909, of SCOTLAND.\nThis is an action brought to recover of the defendants the amount claimed to be due plaintiffs by defendants. Judgment . was rendered against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant L. A. Monroe, and thereupon the plaintiffs appealed.\nThe following issue was submitted: Is L. A. Monroe liable with the firm of B. & S. McDougald for the said debt? Answer: No.\nMcLean & McLean, J. G. McCormick for plaintiff.\nM. L. J ohn, W. H. Neal for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0759-01",
  "first_page_order": 807,
  "last_page_order": 808
}