{
  "id": 8657811,
  "name": "T. B. SHEPHERD v. W. H. SELLERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shepherd v. Sellers",
  "decision_date": "1921-12-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "701",
  "last_page": "703",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 701"
    }
  ],
  "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": "137 N. C., 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656905
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0482-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 4767,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.553952355280055e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4484064514958208
    },
    "sha256": "f14c5d756192ae01b76e883ca31889ef1c9058ef3065102ee899abb08ffcec19",
    "simhash": "1:12bd374357435e61",
    "word_count": 823
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. B. SHEPHERD v. W. H. SELLERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Staot, J.\nTbe defendant\u2019s principal exception is directed to tbe ruling of tbe court in allowing tbe witness Greenwood to give bis understanding of tbe contract witb respect to tbe plaintiff\u2019s commissions. Tbe witness was being examined as to bis conversation witb tbe defendant concerning tbe matter. He bad stated, in answer to a question as to wbat tbe defendant bad said, if anything, in regard to paying tbe plaintiff for bis services, that be could not remember exactly wbat was said. He was then asked: \u201cMr. Sellers did say that be would take $5,000 for tbe farm, but would not be responsible to Mr. Shepherd for anything ?\u201d To this tbe witness replied: \u201cNo; as I understood it, be was to take care of Tom (plaintiff).\u201d Defendant objected, and moved to strike out tbe answer upon tbe ground that it comes within tbe rule prohibiting hearsay evidence; and further, because it does not appear from whom or wbat source tbe witness obtained bis information or understanding.\nIt will be conceded that the competency of this evidence must be determined by tbe fair and reasonable inference as to wbat tbe witness intended to say, and did say. Plaintiff insists that tbe witness was only stating wbat be understood tbe defendant to say in regard to tbe matter, while tbe defendant contends bis impression or understanding may have been, and doubtless was, obtained from some other source. \u00a5e think tbe next succeeding question and answer, immediately following tbe defendant\u2019s objection, will suffice to make clear bis meaning: \u201cPlease state again just wbat you understood Sellers to say in regard to Shepherd getting a commission?\u201d Answer: \u201cI said I will pay you $5,000, one-third in cash, and you settle witb Shepherd, and be said, \u2018All right.\u2019 Now that is wbat was said.\u201d From tbe foregoing we think' it reasonably appears that tbe witness was giving bis understanding of wbat tbe defendant bad said; and, if this be so, tbe evidence was competent. Gilliland v. Board of Education, 141 N. C., 482.\nSpeaking to a kindred and somewhat similar question in tbe case just cited, Hoke, J., delivering tbe opinion, says: \u201cA witness who undertakes to testify to objective facts and qualifies bis testimony by using tbe terms, \u2018I think,\u2019 or \u2018I have an impression,\u2019 etc., if tbe witness has bad no physical observation or has made no note of tbe facts, but is merely stating to tbe court and jury bis mental inference or deduction, this, as a rule, is incompetent. But if tbe witness bas bad opportunity to note relevant facts himself, and d'id observe and note them, and simply qualifies bis testimony in tbis way because bis impression or memory is more or less indistinct, tbis, while in tbe form of opinion, is really tbe statement of a fact, and will be so received.\u201d\nQuite a different question was presented in King v. Bynum, 137 N. C., 491, and we do not tbink our present bolding conflicts in any way with tbe decision in tbat case.\nUpon an examination of tbe whole case, we have found no material error which would justify our disturbing tbe verdict and judgment, or tbe result of tbe trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Staot, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnston & Horn, Gilmer A. Jones, and Bourne, Parker & Jones for plaintiff.",
      "T. J. Johnston, H. G. Robertson, and R. D. Sisk for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. B. SHEPHERD v. W. H. SELLERS.\n(Filed 21 December, 1921.)\nEvidence \u2014 Hearsay\u2014Principal and Agent \u2014 Brokers\u2014Commissions.\nWhen the controversy is whether or not the owner was to pay his selling agent or broker a commission upon the sale of his lands at a certain price, or whether the price was to be net to him, a witness who has had a conversation with the owner respecting it does not render his evidence incompetent as hearsay, by the use of the words \u201cmy impression\u201d or \u201cmy understanding,\u201d etc., these words referring more or less to the uncertainty of the memory of the witness; nor will the evidence be objectionable as uncertain of the source of this recollection when it may be seen by reference to his answers to other questions that he was testifying to what he had heard the owner say.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, J., at April Term, 1921, of MacoN.\nCivil action to recover agent\u2019s commissions on tbe sale of certain real estate.\nThere was evidence adduced on tbe bearing tending to sbow tbat tbe defendant agreed to pay tbe plaintiff a reasonable compensation for bis services if be would procure a purchaser for tbe defendant\u2019s farm at tbe price of $5,000. A sale was effected upon these terms, but tbe defendant declined to pay tbe plaintiff, contending tbat tbe amount received was to be net, and tbat plaintiff agreed to look to tbe purchaser for bis commissions.\nUpon tbe traverse and issues tbiis joined, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff. Defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nJohnston & Horn, Gilmer A. Jones, and Bourne, Parker & Jones for plaintiff.\nT. J. Johnston, H. G. Robertson, and R. D. Sisk for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0701-01",
  "first_page_order": 771,
  "last_page_order": 773
}