{
  "id": 8657813,
  "name": "H. D. SLOAN v. COOPER GUANO COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sloan v. Cooper Guano Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "690",
  "last_page": "691",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 N.C. 690"
    }
  ],
  "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": 176,
    "char_count": 2322,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "sha256": "84bc7d2546b44caceee915cd249802ab380ff3f74ad355f37195d6979735e375",
    "simhash": "1:ca6789f39b6040d4",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:13.878101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. D. SLOAN v. COOPER GUANO COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Ouriam.\nTbe controversy is qne entirely of fact dependent upon tbe terms of tbe contract, wbicb tbe jury bas resolved against tbe appellant.\nMost of tbe exceptions are to tbe refusal to give certain instructions, wbicb were predicated on tbe version of tbe contract given by tbe Cooper company, and could not bave been given, because they required tbe judge, and not tbe jury, to decide tbe fact.\nWe find no error in tbe trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Ouriam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "I.. G. Wright and Foivler & Grumpier for plaintiff.",
      "Grady & Graham for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. D. SLOAN v. COOPER GUANO COMPANY.\n(Filed 9 October, 1918.)\nInstructions \u2014 Appellant\u2019s Evidence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury \u2014 Trials.\nInstructions predicated upon the appellant\u2019s version of the contract sued on, which was for the determination of the jury under conflicting evidence, are properly refused.\nAppeal by Sloan & Company from Calvert, J., at Fall Term, 1918, of SAMPSON.\nThese were two actions, originally; the first action being entitled H. D. Sloan v. Cooper Guano Company and ~W. B. Cooper; the second action being entitled Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan. By consent, the two actions were consolidated and tried together. Upon the trial it was admitted that H. D. Sloan was indebted to Cooper Guano Company in the sum of $697.64, with interest thereon from 11 November, 1916, and that Cooper Guano - Company was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property described in the affidavit of claim and delivery, filed in the case of Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan, and that the value of said property at the time of seizure was $1,000. Issues were submitted in conformity with this agreement, and answered by the court, as will appear in the judgment.\nThe only questions for the consideration of the court arose upon the complaint in the case of H. D. Sloan v. Cooper Guano Company, and \u25a0the counterclaim set up in the answer of H. D. Sloan in the case of Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan, alleging that the Cooper company agreed to pay Sloan 50 cents per ton on all fertilizers sold to the members of the Farmers\u2019 Union in Sampson County, which was denied by the Cooper company. Both parties introduced evidence in support of their claims.\nThe jury returned a verdict in favor of Sloan, and the Cooper Company appealed from the. judgment rendered thereon.\nI.. G. Wright and Foivler & Grumpier for plaintiff.\nGrady & Graham for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0690-01",
  "first_page_order": 742,
  "last_page_order": 743
}