{
  "id": 11271340,
  "name": "C. N. SIMPSON, Jr., v. R. M. GREEN & SONS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 N.C. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 N. C., 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269104
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0209-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270148
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.664971201023689
    },
    "sha256": "ad978a297cb7c576e8f09569e6fb53b419ab27a32e5cfb1de91fbfc8e7238e58",
    "simhash": "1:d7cd600cab0df5fd",
    "word_count": 644
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:58.976002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. N. SIMPSON, Jr., v. R. M. GREEN & SONS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nFrom the facts in evidence, it appears that defendant sold and conveyed to plaintiff, under a written contract, dated 21 December, 1910, and containing full specifications, a soda fountain, with usual fixtures, etc. The- same was installed on 23 March, 1911, and has been used by plaintiff since that date; that some cash, $100, was paid on execution of contract; $200 more on arrival of goods, and, in order to get bill of lading for same, remainder of purchase price was evidenced by plaintiff\u2019s notes, payable monthly, and these notes seem to have been paid at the time of action brought; that on 21 August, 1911, plaintiff instituted present suit for damages for breach of contract, claiming that the fountain did not come up to specifications and charging that the carbonator was not of the kind described, nor the trimmings of the counter; the contract requiring that these trimmings should be shaded green, and they proved to be white. The written contract contained, among others, the following stipulation: \u201cThe sole authorized business of our agents is to solicit contracts on this printed form, and no agreement or representation will be recognized by us unless it is written hereon.\u201d Having accepted and used the fountain for several months, the plaintiff must be considered as holding it under the terms of the contract, and a perusal of the testimony will disclose that plaintiff rests his principal grievance, not on the ground that the carbonator differs from the specifications of the contract, but that the same does not come up to certain verbal assurances of defendant\u2019s agent, made at the time of sale and not contained in the written agreement between the parties. Under the written stipulation, above quoted, these verbal assurances constitute no part of the contract, and our authorities are to the effect that they may not be considered in an action for its breach. Machine Co. v. McClamrock, 152 N. C., 405; Medicine Co. v. Mizell, 148 N. C., 384. On tbe question of tbe white and green trimmings, tbe evidence as to pecuniary injury is entirely too indefinite to be made tbe basis of any substantial recovery, and any tecbnical breach of tbe contract in this respect should, in our opinion, be treated as waived. See Parker v. Fenwick, 138 N. C., 209. There is no error, and tbe judgment directing a nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bedwine & Sikes for plaintiff.",
      "Stack & Parker for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. N. SIMPSON, Jr., v. R. M. GREEN & SONS.\n(Filed 13 November, 1912.)\nContracts, Written \u2014 Vendor and Vendee \u2014 Principal and Agent\u2014 Parol Evidence \u2014 Technical Breach of Contract \u2014 Substantial Recovery.\nUpon an action for damages for breach of contract in the sale of a soda fountain, it appears that the plaintiff signed a written contract of purchase requiring that the trimmings of the fountain should be shaded green, and among others it contained the stipulation that \u201cthe sole authorized business of our agents is to solicit contracts on this printed form, and no agreement or representation will be recognized by us unless it is written hereon\u201d: Held, the plaintiff having accepted and used the fountain for several months, cannot maintain his action upon the ground that a certain part did not come up to the verbal representations of the vendor\u2019s selling agent; and, further, the fact that the trimmings of the fountain were white, instead of green, on the evidence presented, was only a technical breach of the contract, and did not afford a basis for a substantial recovery.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at August Term, 1912, Of UNION.\nCivil action beard on appeal from a justice\u2019s court, to the Superior Court of Union County.\nAt close of testimony, on motion, there was judgment of non-' suit, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Jusiice Hoke.\nBedwine & Sikes for plaintiff.\nStack & Parker for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 343
}