{
  "id": 8657756,
  "name": "J. L. EFLAND v. A. G. BLANCHARD and J. W. THOMASSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Efland v. Blanchard",
  "decision_date": "1918-10-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "687",
  "last_page": "688",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 N.C. 687"
    }
  ],
  "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": 117,
    "char_count": 1524,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "sha256": "ad244d7c129f96fa32c3744c30e0379bbedbb0835e46399230a316c4c612ede4",
    "simhash": "1:e085648c2255043c",
    "word_count": 257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:13.878101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. L. EFLAND v. A. G. BLANCHARD and J. W. THOMASSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cueiam.\nThe eight assignments of error relate to the rulings of the court upon the evidence. Upon an examination of them, we think they are without merit.\nThe issues presented are largely disputed questions of fact, and appear to us to have been settled by the verdict.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u2019 A. J. Fletcher and Jones & Bailey for plaintiff.",
      "Douglass & Douglass for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. L. EFLAND v. A. G. BLANCHARD and J. W. THOMASSON.\n(Filed 23 October, 1918.)\nAction tried before Stacy, J., at June Term, 1918, of Wake, upon these issues:\n1. Is tbe defendant, J. W. Tbomasson, indebted to tbe plaintiff? If so, in wbat amount? Answer: Yes, $272.70, plus $44.40, with interest from 1 November, 1915.\n2. Was the signature of A. G-. Blanchard to the paper-writing referred to in the complaint obtained by the mutual mistake of the plaintiff\u2019s agent, N. 0. Harris, and the defendant A. Gr. Blanchard, as alleged in the defendant\u2019s answer? Answer: No.\n3. Was the signature of A. Gr. Blanchard to the paper-writing described in the complaint procured by the fraud of the plaintiff\u2019s agent, N. C. Harris, as alleged in the defendant\u2019s answer? Answer: No.\n4. Was the paper-writing described in the complaint signed by the mistake of A. Gr. Blanchard induced by the fraud of the plaintiff\u2019s agent, N. C. Harris, as alleged in the defendant\u2019s answer? Answer: No.\n5. Is the defendant A. G. Blanchard indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: Yes, $272.70, plus $44.40, with interest from 1 November, 1915.\nFrom the judgment rendered defendant appealed.\n\u2019 A. J. Fletcher and Jones & Bailey for plaintiff.\nDouglass & Douglass for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0687-02",
  "first_page_order": 739,
  "last_page_order": 740
}