{
  "id": 11272282,
  "name": "C. SCOTT and W. C. McLEAN, Trading as C. SCOTT & CO., v. L. SCOTT REYNOLDS, Administrator of L. M. SCOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott v. Reynolds",
  "decision_date": "1913-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "163 N.C. 502"
    }
  ],
  "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": 235,
    "char_count": 3552,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "sha256": "e107b2660013fbde4d2d731c41e5f26411d595eae0538e20b3c7b06efa22f58d",
    "simhash": "1:976e40b5573520af",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:53.185686+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. SCOTT and W. C. McLEAN, Trading as C. SCOTT & CO., v. L. SCOTT REYNOLDS, Administrator of L. M. SCOTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTbis action is brought to recover an account for groceries alleged to bave been purchased by defendant\u2019s intestate from tbe plaintiffs. .\nTbe defendant assigns error because tbe witness Maun was permitted to testify that tbe account presented to L. M. Scott, defendant\u2019s intestate, was for. groceries. Tbe witness Mann testified:\nTbat be works for C. Scott & Co.; clerk in tbe store; tbat be knew Levi M. Scott; tbat be bad beard tbe .testimony of Mr. 0. Scott; tbat be presented tbe- account tp Mr. Levy Scott; tbat be took it and looked at it and said: \u201cTbat is Mr. Clarence Scott, is it?\u201d Witness said, \u201cYes, sir.\u201d He said, \u201cTbat is all right. I am expecting some dividends from some insurance cases along later in tbe spring, and I want to settle tbat up.\u201d\nTbis is all tba.t witness said to bim about it. Tbat Mr. Scott looked at tbe account wben be said it- was all right, and bad tbe account in bis bands wben be said tbat; tbat tbe amount of tbe account was $631.63; tbat tbe account was the same one presented here; tbat tbis is tbe account be presented, without tbe interest on it.\nUpon cross-examination, tbe witness testified tbat it was some time right after tbe first of tbe year of 1911 wben be presented tbe. account to Mr. Scott; tbat be presented it to bim in bis office, right over here near tbe courthouse. On redirect examination, witness testified tbat be did not sell any of tbe goods to Mr. Scott; tbat Mr. Scott never traded any there after be went to work there for Mr. Scott. Witness was asked tbis question: \u201cWhat was tbe account you presented to bim for?\u201d Defendant objected. Tbe court remarked: \u201cI think it is competent.\u201d Defendant excepted. Witness answered: \u201cFor groceries.\u201d\nWe see no merit in tbis exception. If tbe evidence is believed, it proves tbat tbe account was duly presented for payment to defendant\u2019s intestate and tbat be recognized and promised to pay it.\nIt is true tbe witness did not personally sell tbe goods, but tbe fact tbat they were groceries was doubtless apparent in-the account itself.\nTbe remaining assignments of error have as little merit as tbe above, and need no discussion.\nHaving proved to tbe satisfaction of the jury tbat tbe account was duly presented and tbat tbe defendant\u2019s intestate promised to pay it, tbe plaintiff was clearly entitled to interest.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "Adams & MacLean for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. SCOTT and W. C. McLEAN, Trading as C. SCOTT & CO., v. L. SCOTT REYNOLDS, Administrator of L. M. SCOTT.\n(Filed 12 November, 1913.)\nTrials \u2014 Debtor and .Creditor \u2014 Account \u2014 Evidence\u2014Admission of Correctness \u2014 Judgment\u2014Interest.\nWhere there is evidence that the deceased had examined, before his death, the account for which His administrator is sued, and had said it was right, promising to pay it out of certain moneys he was expecting, and that the account sued on was the same as that the deceased had acknowledged,, except as to added interest, it is not reversible error for the witness to testify that the account was for groceries, though he testified that he had not personally sold them; and the amount of the debt being established by the verdict of the jury on this evidence, it was proper that the interest thereon be allowed in the judgment.\nAppeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at September Term, 1913, of Guilfokd.\nCivil action tried upon tbis issue: \u201cIs tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff, and if so, in wbat.amount? Answer: $631.63, with legal interest from 30 November, 1910, to present date.\u201d\nTbe defendant excepted and appealed.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nAdams & MacLean for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 548,
  "last_page_order": 549
}