{
  "id": 11272210,
  "name": "HORNER MILITARY SCHOOL et al. v. J. F. ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horner Military School v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "270",
  "last_page": "271",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 N.C. 270"
    }
  ],
  "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": 217,
    "char_count": 3141,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033788070269734
    },
    "sha256": "2f44f7e232500d85a12fbf51508873b10505fbf6c65b8975f45e725d0a3e636e",
    "simhash": "1:561456f3b9228cd1",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:31.572596+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HORNER MILITARY SCHOOL et al. v. J. F. ROGERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BrowN, J.\nThis action is brought to recover the tuition charges for defendant\u2019s two sons. The correspondence in evidence establishes a contract between the plaintiff and defendant in pursuance of which the defendant sent his sons to plaintiff\u2019s school and agreed to pay a certain sum for their tuition, board and lodging, the defendant to furnish, as stated in the catalogue, bedclothing and towels.\nThe court instructed the jury that in this case there is no evidence of violation of contract on part of plaintiff, and jury should answer first issue \u201cYes.\u201d The defendant excepted.\nUpon all the evidence, we agree with his Honor that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $250, in case the plaintiff performed the contract on its part, and his Honor did not err in giving -the plaintiff\u2019s first three instructions. But there was error in giving the fourth.\nThe law implies that the board and lodging to be furnished by plaintiff must be clean, decent, and reasonably wholesome. The defendant offered evidence tending to prove that when his sons arrived at the school they were assigned to a room furnished solely with \u201ctwo old home-made bedsteads, two old dirty and filthy mattresses, a piece of a mirror, a goods box for bureau, and an old washstand.\u201d The boys testify that they could not sleep on such mattresses, and went to a hotel. The defendant came and made examination. He testifies: \u201cI found conditions there I would not like to describe; there was filth and dirt all over it, and the mattresses were so filthy they were not fit for decent people to sleep on.\u201d\nIt is true that tbe plaintiff introduced much evidence tending to contradict this, and to prove that the accommodations furnished were reasonably wholesome, clean, and suitable for the pupils of the school.\nHis Honor\u2019s instruction did not permit the defendant\u2019s evidence to be passed upon by the jury. It is patent that if the conditions were such as described by the defendant and his sons, the plaintiff did not perform the contract on its part, and could not recover. His Honor should have submitted the matter to the jury with appropriate instructions.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BrowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. W. Graham for plaintiff.",
      "B. S. Royster for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HORNER MILITARY SCHOOL et al. v. J. F. ROGERS.\n(Filed 11 November, 1914.)\nSchools \u2014 Contracts\u2014Board and Lodging \u2014 Presumptions\u2014Reasonably Clean and Wholesome \u2014 Trials \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury \u2014 Courts\u2014Verdict, Directing.\nWhere the plaintiff: sues upon a contract for the price agreed to be paid by the defendant for the tuition, board and lodging of his sons, the law implies that the board and lodging to be furnished by plaintiff must be clean, decent, and reasonably wholesome,, and when the evidence is conflicting as to whether the plaintiff has performed these requirements, the question should be submitted to the jury, and it is reversible error for the judge to direct a verdict in the plaintiff\u2019s favor because the terms of the contract are admitted or established.\nAppeal by defendant from Lyon, J., at May Term, 1914, of GraN-ville.\nThis was a civil action. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.\nA. W. Graham for plaintiff.\nB. S. Royster for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0270-01",
  "first_page_order": 324,
  "last_page_order": 325
}