{
  "id": 11255660,
  "name": "BRAWLEY & GANTT v. THEODORE TURNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brawley v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1917-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "775",
  "last_page": "775",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 N.C. 775"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 946,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "sha256": "61742219b831ebb4cbbaa4edbd18a824c22565fa35fa9f14c7a9e8d355cca648",
    "simhash": "1:88400a2282949280",
    "word_count": 158
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRAWLEY & GANTT v. THEODORE TURNER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have carefully examined the record and find no error. The rulings upon evidence, considered in connection with the caution given to the jury, were clearly right, and the whole controversy resolved itself into an issue of fact for the jury.\nThe plaintiffs first alleged a special contract to pay them $500, but abandoned this cause of action and recovered $350 on a quantum meruit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manning, Everett & Kitchin for plaintiff.",
      "W. H. Qarroll for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRAWLEY & GANTT v. THEODORE TURNER.\n(Filed 7 November, 1917.)\nContracts \u2014 Quantum Meruit.\nNo .error is foiind in tbis action to recover upon a quantum meruit for tbe value of services rendered in procuring a pardon.\nAppeal by defendant from Kerr, J., at the March Term, 1917, of DURHAM.\nThis is an action to recover the value of services rendered in procuring a pardon for the defendant.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.\nManning, Everett & Kitchin for plaintiff.\nW. H. Qarroll for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0775-01",
  "first_page_order": 831,
  "last_page_order": 831
}