{
  "id": 11255840,
  "name": "A. S. COPELAND et al. v. F. M. HOWARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Copeland v. Howard",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "842",
  "last_page": "842",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 842"
    }
  ],
  "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": "148 N. C., 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270022
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0388-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 113,
    "char_count": 1105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23897010984038067
    },
    "sha256": "f70a6db1d93a3ea1ee1a6f6f6d63d6d18e4675011ca5e79e7f06312fee30bcd0",
    "simhash": "1:aab7a2121a359f87",
    "word_count": 195
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. S. COPELAND et al. v. F. M. HOWARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuriaM.\nThe evidence was properly excluded, because in direct contradiction of the terms of the writing. Walker v. Venters, 148 N. C., 388; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N. C., 350.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuriaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loftin, Dawson & Manning and G. M. Allen for plaintiffs.",
      "T. G. Wooten and Joe Dawson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. S. COPELAND et al. v. F. M. HOWARD.\n(Filed 11 October, 1916.)\nContracts, Written \u2014 Parol Evidence.\nParol evidence that at the 'time of the execution of a promissory note the parties agreed that the due date would be at a different time from that therein stated is inadmissible, as varying the terms of the writing.\nAppeal from Bond, J., at April Term, 1916, of LeNOIr.\nThis is an action upon a note executed by the defendant and payable on 1 January, 1915.\nThe defendant offered to prove that at the time of the execution of the note an agreement was entered into between him and the plaintiff that the note should not be paid until two years from its date. This evidence was excluded, and the defendant excepted.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.\nLoftin, Dawson & Manning and G. M. Allen for plaintiffs.\nT. G. Wooten and Joe Dawson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0842-01",
  "first_page_order": 908,
  "last_page_order": 908
}