{
  "id": 8656323,
  "name": "J. E. BRADY v. ELMER and A. C. MOTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brady v. Elmer",
  "decision_date": "1923-05-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. 421"
    }
  ],
  "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": 192,
    "char_count": 3096,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3192498867694603
    },
    "sha256": "d1d8ffedc83b8fbd84fed017e7c6903577f7eff0dc26dc08b81aee4170ec49ae",
    "simhash": "1:0d809cec34be9294",
    "word_count": 529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:28.944101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. E. BRADY v. ELMER and A. C. MOTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nTbe action, as now presented in tbe record, is to recover on a note for $150 given by defendants to plaintiff for tbe purchase price of a Holstein bull, said amount being due and unpaid. Counterclaim by defendants for $2,650 as damages for an alleged breach of an express warranty in the sale of the bull to the effect \u201cthat the bull was all right and a good and sure calf getter.\u201d On issues submitted, the jury rendered the following verdict :\n\u201c1. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: \u2018$150, with interest.\u2019\n\u201c2. Did the plaintiff warrant and represent that the bull in question was straight and all right and a good and sure calf getter? Answer: \u2018No.\u2019\n\u201c3. Was the bull straight and all right and a good and sure calf getter ? Answer:\n\u201c4. What damages, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of plaintiff on the counterclaim ? Answer:\u201d\nJudgment for amount of the note, and defendants appealed.\nThere is no objection in the record affecting the verdict on the note given by defendants to plaintiff, and while the appellants have made numerous assignments of error as to the disposition of their counterclaim, some of them well worthy of consideration, they are all objections which refer only to the quantum of damages for the alleged breach of warranty, -and as the jury, under a charge free from reversible error, have found that there was no warranty given, defendant\u2019s exceptions have become immaterial, and may not be allowed to affect the result. The judgment for plaintiff, therefore, must be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. H. Bedding and J. A. Spence for plaintiff.",
      "Hammer & Moser and Brittain, Brittain & Brittain for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. E. BRADY v. ELMER and A. C. MOTON.\n(Filed 9 May, 1923.)\nVendor and Purchaser \u2014 Warranty\u2014Breach\u2014Verdict\u2014Appeal and Error \u2014Harmless Error.\nWhere an action upon a note given for a Holstein bull has been united with the purchaser\u2019s action for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of the bull, and the latter regarded as a counterclaim, the verdict of the jury, upon conflicting evidence and under a charge free from error, that there was no warranty by the plaintiff, renders immaterial defendant\u2019s exceptions referring only to the quantum of damages for the alleged breach of warranty.\nAppeal by defendant from Finley, J., at tbe July Term, 1922, of BANDOLPH.\nOn perusal of tbe record, it appears tbat there was an action pending in Superior Court of said county, presumably on appeal from a justice\u2019s court, to recover on a $150 note given by defendants to plaintiff for tbe purchase price of a Holstein bull. Tbe defendants bad also sued plaintiff to recover damages to amount of $2,650 for breach of an express warranty in tbe sale of tbe bull. It having been also made to appear tbat tbe two actions grew out of tbe same transaction, and involved tbe same testimony from tbe same witnesses, an order was entered tbat they be consolidated and tried together and defendants\u2019 action treated as a counterclaim to plaintiff\u2019s suit. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.\nG. H. Bedding and J. A. Spence for plaintiff.\nHammer & Moser and Brittain, Brittain & Brittain for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 488
}