{
  "id": 8654833,
  "name": "SURRATT BROTHERS v. C. H. KLUTTZ",
  "name_abbreviation": "Surratt Bros. v. Kluttz",
  "decision_date": "1923-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "777",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 777"
    }
  ],
  "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": 124,
    "char_count": 1146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "sha256": "a3ddbc11a62e73e05c9ceb0ec8e20cac9240c7b351f95fe972215a6398bed12b",
    "simhash": "1:bd106dfa521576d7",
    "word_count": 192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SURRATT BROTHERS v. C. H. KLUTTZ."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nTbe trial of this cause reduced itself to a controversy over issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of tbe record convinces us that tbe case has been tried substantially in accordance with tbe law bearing on tbe subject, and we have discovered no ruling or action on tbe part of tbe trial court which would seem to require another bearing. Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Phillips & Bower for plaintiffs.",
      "Walser & Walser and Z. I. Walser for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SURRATT BROTHERS v. C. H. KLUTTZ.\n(Filed 21 November, 1923.)\nAppeal by defendant from Stack, J., at May Term, 1923, of Davidson.\nCivil action tried upon tbe following issues :\n\u201c1. Did tbe defendant contract to buy of tbe plaintiffs 150,000 feet of lumber at $50 a thousand as alleged in tbe complaint ? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, did tbe defendant breach tbe said contract, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c3. What damage, if any, has tbe plaintiffs sustained by reason thereof? Answer: \u2018$2,825.\u2019\u201d\nBy consent of plaintiff, tbe amount of damages was reduced to $2,000 and judgment entered therefor. Defendant appealed.\nPhillips & Bower for plaintiffs.\nWalser & Walser and Z. I. Walser for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0777-01",
  "first_page_order": 841,
  "last_page_order": 841
}