{
  "id": 8654779,
  "name": "G. S. RAY v. HILL VENEER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.",
  "decision_date": "1923-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "773",
  "last_page": "774",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 773"
    }
  ],
  "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": 117,
    "char_count": 1104,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "sha256": "cf1b5d69b2294f0860d9bb0eba00a114445ac0ca2ebd3fea58ca9bc275ab183d",
    "simhash": "1:a9d9c0ef4537919f",
    "word_count": 193
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. S. RAY v. HILL VENEER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OueiaM.\nWithout stating the facts, some of which are in dispute, 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, some of which is denied by the defendant, as the only question before us is whether or not 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 case remanded for another trial.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thos. G. Garter for plaintiff.",
      "\u25a0 Parker & Long and David H. Parsons for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. S. RAY v. HILL VENEER COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 November, 1923.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at May-June Term, 1923, of ALAMANCE.\nCivil action to recover damages for breach of contract alleged to have been made in connection with the sale of certain walnut logs. There was a denial of the contract, and at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence judgment of nonsuit was entered on motion of defendant. Plaintiff appealed.\nThos. G. Garter for plaintiff.\n\u25a0 Parker & Long and David H. Parsons for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0773-02",
  "first_page_order": 837,
  "last_page_order": 838
}