{
  "id": 8655289,
  "name": "P. H. SASSER v. HINER SPECIALTY AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and C. N. HINER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sasser v. Hiner Specialty & Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1924-10-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "821",
  "last_page": "822",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 821"
    }
  ],
  "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": 153,
    "char_count": 1612,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "sha256": "307d335b3f3b2065f67c1086b189d2b7776456d9cf3676acde4709887ce0cb7b",
    "simhash": "1:881125d29205c705",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "P. H. SASSER v. HINER SPECIALTY AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and C. N. HINER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nTbe controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to issues of facts, wbieb tbe jury alone could determine. Tbe cbief assignment of error, or tbe one most strongly urged on tbe argument and in tbe brief, is tbe exception directed to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant tbe defendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Viewing tbe evidence in its most favorable light for tbe plaintiff, tbe accepted position on a motion of this kind, we think tbe trial court was justified in submitting tbe case to tbe jury, and that tbe verdict is fully warranted thereby.\nNo benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe only material question before us is wbetber it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we tbink it is.\nTbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Hinsdale and Murray Allen for plaintiff.",
      "G. A. Gosney for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "P. H. SASSER v. HINER SPECIALTY AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and C. N. HINER.\n(Filed 15 October, 1924.)\nAppeal by defendants from Daniels, J., at February Term, 1924, of Waice.\nCivil action to rescind a stock-subscription contract, tbe execution of wbieb, it is alleged, was induced by fraud, consisting of false .and fraudulent representations of tbe defendant C. N. Hiner, agent of bis eodefendant, and to recover back tbe moneys paid on said stock subscription.\nUpon denial of liability, and issues joined, there was a verdict and. \u2022 judgment for tbe plaintiff, from wbieb tbe defendants appeal, assigning errors.\nJohn W. Hinsdale and Murray Allen for plaintiff.\nG. A. Gosney for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0821-02",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 892
}