{
  "id": 8661531,
  "name": "J. F. HOWERTON v. H. SCHERER & CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howerton v. H. Scherer & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "669",
  "last_page": "670",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "170 N.C. 669"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651742
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1657,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0873401050065135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5644670789686966
    },
    "sha256": "fc898652f1e40e95c024a629d71f932a25b5b85baab52aaad4b39efbbb777f3c",
    "simhash": "1:b42f9458566b0c8d",
    "word_count": 288
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:17.272665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. F. HOWERTON v. H. SCHERER & CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis action was brought to recover from the defend-' ants the sum of $345, with interest, alleged to be due for the balance of the salary and traveling expense which the defendants are alleged to have contracted to pay tbe plaintiff. There are no exceptions to tbe evidence, and tbe matter seems to be almost exclusively of fact. Tbe defendant assigns error \u201cto tbe failure of bis Honor to properly instruct tbe jury as to tbe weight and effect of tbe contract introduced in tbe evidence.\u201d Tbis is a broadside exception, and under our rulings need not be considered by us. Nevertheless, we have examined tbe charge, and think that bis Honor fully complied with tbe law in tbe absence of any request for special instructions. If fuller instructions bad been desired, they should have been asked for. Ives v. R. R., 142 N. C., 131.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "~W. L. Foushee for plaintiff.",
      "Syhes & Sheppard for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. F. HOWERTON v. H. SCHERER & CO.\n(Filed 3 November, 1915.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Broadside Exceptions.\nIn an action to recover a balance of salary alleged to be due by contract, an exception to the judge\u2019s charge that be failed to properly instruct the jury as to the weight and effect of the contract is held to be a broadside exception which the Supreme Court will not consider on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Coohe, J., at April Term, 1915, of Durham. Civil action, tried upon these issues:\n1. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged? If so, in what amount? Answer: \u201c$300.\u201d\n2. Is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant by way of counterclaim, as alleged? If so, in what amount? Answer: \u201cNothing.\u201d\nThe defendant appealed.\n~W. L. Foushee for plaintiff.\nSyhes & Sheppard for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0669-01",
  "first_page_order": 731,
  "last_page_order": 732
}