{
  "id": 8655174,
  "name": "C. B. BRANTLEY et al. v. G. D. RICKS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brantley v. Ricks",
  "decision_date": "1924-09-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "815",
  "last_page": "816",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 815"
    }
  ],
  "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": 120,
    "char_count": 1101,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "sha256": "f1a1b0b1914d5b412714a2618e45cc44a6f09c5c83260e29933888e1221b6f17",
    "simhash": "1:de02417776268e5e",
    "word_count": 195
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. B. BRANTLEY et al. v. G. D. RICKS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CueiaM.\nOn a controverted issue of fact, tbe jury has taken the defendant\u2019s version of the matter. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried substantially in agreement with the law bearing on the subject, and we have discovered no ruling or action on the part of the trial court, as presented by the exceptions, which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "0. B. Moss for plaintiff.",
      "Finch & Vaughan and Manning & Manning for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. B. BRANTLEY et al. v. G. D. RICKS et al.\n(Filed 17 September, 1924.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at February Term, 1924, of Nash.\nCivil action to recover of the defendant, G. D. Ricks, the sum of $116.30 for merchandise furnished his tenant, James Crudup, during the year 1918, and which it is alleged he agreed to assume responsibility for its payment.\nThe case was commenced in a court of a justice of the peace, and tried de novo on appeal to the Superior Court.\nFrom a verdict and judgment in favor of defendant, the plaintiff appeals.\n0. B. Moss for plaintiff.\nFinch & Vaughan and Manning & Manning for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0815-02",
  "first_page_order": 885,
  "last_page_order": 886
}