{
  "id": 8655674,
  "name": "R. F. BUTT v. W. C. MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butt v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1922-03-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": 159,
    "char_count": 2334,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "sha256": "bfc9422eeb2e0a4faeee18c1440291e32629f0f9631ff316054b1ed09fca43fe",
    "simhash": "1:da750f13d648b81c",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. F. BUTT v. W. C. MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nTbe plaintiff set up two causes of action: one for failure to pay one-balf of tbe cost of grading tbe tobacco; and tbe other for failure to furnish tbe amount of fertilizer as agreed'upon between tbe parties. His Honor declined to submit tbe second cause of action to tbe jury. In this we think there was error. True, tbe evidence of tbe plaintiff is not very satisfactory on this phase of tbe case \u2014 and that of tbe defendant quite positive \u2014 but we think it was sufficient to require its submission to tbe jury.\nAs we find no error in tbe trial of tbe first cause of action, tbe new trial will be limited to tbe second phase of tbe case.\nPartial new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julius Brown for plaintiff.",
      "F. G. James & Son for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. F. BUTT v. W. C. MOORE.\n(Filed 15 March, 1922.)\nEvidence \u2014 Separate . Causes of Action \u2014 New Trial as to One Cause\u2014 Appeal and Error.\nUpon allegation of two causes of action for breach of contract, one, the defendant\u2019s liability to pay the plaintiff the agreed price for grading tobacco, and the other the defendant\u2019s failure to furnish fertilizer as agreed: Held, the evidence in this case was sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon the second cause of action; and the jury having answered in the defendant\u2019s favor in the first cause, a new trial is awarded on the plaintiff\u2019s appeal, on his alleged second cause of action alone.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lyon, J., at August Term, 1921, of Pitt.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The-plaintiff complained that he was a tenant on the farm of the defendant for the year 1916, and that he entered into an agreement or contract with the defendant whereby the said defendant agreed to pay for one-half of all tobacco grading, and to furnish the said plaintiff 300 pounds of fertilizer to the acre of cotton and corn, and alleges that the defendant failed and refused to pay for one-half of the tobacco grading, which was $21; also failed to furnish the amount of fertilizer agreed upon in said contract, whereby the plaintiff suffered a loss of $21.60.\nTbe court submitted to tbe jury tbe question of grading tbe tobacco, but declined to allow them to consider tbe alleged shortage- and failure to furnish tbe full amount of fertilizer.\nThere was a verdict and judgment in favor of tbe defendant; plaintiff appealed.\nJulius Brown for plaintiff.\nF. G. James & Son for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 219
}