{
  "id": 8657129,
  "name": "JOHN R. WENTZ v. BURTON SYSTEM, Inc., et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wentz v. Burton System, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1923-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "609",
  "last_page": "610",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. 609"
    }
  ],
  "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": 133,
    "char_count": 1439,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "sha256": "5bf1e0c160bc2fca8581632df765d5a0d8112178fe64279453e00349d4e141bd",
    "simhash": "1:a1eb8aef327d859f",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:28.944101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN R. WENTZ v. BURTON SYSTEM, Inc., et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nWithout stating the facts, which are somewhat complicated, and make a rather long story, we are convinced, from a careful perusal of the record, viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion to nonsuit, that the case should have been submitted to the jury. No benefit would be derived from detailing the evidence, as the only question before us is whether it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and we think it is.\nThe judgment of nonsuit will be set aside, and the cause remanded for another trial.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stancill & Davis, J. D. McCall, and J ohn M. Robinson for plaintiff.",
      "James A. Bell and D. B. Smith for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN R. WENTZ v. BURTON SYSTEM, Inc., et al.\n(Filed 2 May, 1923.)\nEvidence \u2014 N onsuit \u2014 Motions\u2014\u2018Trials.\nIn this action to set aside a sale and transfer of personal property for fraud and false representations, the evidence was sufficient for the determination of the jury, and defendants\u2019 motion as of nonsuit thereon should have been denied.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Webb, J., at October 'Term, 1922, of Mece-LENBURG.\nAction to set aside a sale and transfer of certain personal property, and for damages, it being alleged that tbe sale of tbe property in question was induced by fraud and false representations. At tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, judgment as of nonsuit was entered, on motion of tbe defendants. Plaintiff appealed.\nStancill & Davis, J. D. McCall, and J ohn M. Robinson for plaintiff.\nJames A. Bell and D. B. Smith for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0609-01",
  "first_page_order": 675,
  "last_page_order": 676
}