{
  "id": 11273661,
  "name": "J. J. WRIGHT AND SONS v. L. L. SHEPARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Shepard",
  "decision_date": "1919-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "656",
  "last_page": "657",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 N.C. 656"
    }
  ],
  "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": 140,
    "char_count": 1711,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31534077855504317
    },
    "sha256": "d2b418df6dfd1775cd5957c97a3a7818d3a321a0ed4175a0c6cc5f7635330a8d",
    "simhash": "1:87e50322bacd0459",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:08.818827+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. J. WRIGHT AND SONS v. L. L. SHEPARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe controversy was one of fact, the plaintiff contending that he was employed by the defendant to sell his lot; that he procured a purchaser to whom the defendant afterwards sold, and the defendant that the plaintiff could not procure a purchaser at the price he was authorized to sell; that he withdrew the lot from the plaintiff, and then sold it; and it has been submitted to the jury under proper instructions, whi\u00f3h not only required the defendant to show that he gave notice to the plaintiff that the lot was withdrawn, but also that this was done in good faith.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McClammy & Burgwin for plaintiff.",
      "W. F. Jones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. J. WRIGHT AND SONS v. L. L. SHEPARD.\n(Filed 22 October, 1919.)\nPrincipal and Agent \u2014 Commissions\u2014Evidence\u2014Instructions.\nHeld,, this case involved only issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to his commission on the sale of land for defendant, or whether the defendant had properly withdrawn the agency upon notice, and had sold the land himself; and it appearing that upon the evidence the judge had properly instructed the jury, no error is found.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stacy, J., at the December Term, 1918, of New HaNOvee.\nThis is an action begun before a justice of the peace to recover the sum of $75, which the plaintiff alleged was due him as his commission upon the sale of a piece of property, which the defendant had given to the plaintiff, who was a real estate dealer, to sell for him. Upon appeal to the Superior Court there was one issue submitted to the jury: \u201cIs the defendant indebted to the plaintiff; if so, in what amount ?\u201d The jury answefed the issue \u201cNo,\u201d and the plaintiff appealed from judgment for defendant.\nMcClammy & Burgwin for plaintiff.\nW. F. Jones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0656-01",
  "first_page_order": 722,
  "last_page_order": 723
}