{
  "id": 8618942,
  "name": "J. HERBERT BATE COMPANY v. J. N. BRYANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "J. Herbert Bate Co. v. Bryant",
  "decision_date": "1925-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "868",
  "last_page": "869",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 N.C. 868"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0241-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20719682884986731
    },
    "sha256": "ed4551eb77400f714866125eaaba54da0ccb507f53e888bc1e0977406170666c",
    "simhash": "1:1e0ad646c96f1df9",
    "word_count": 208
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672014+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. HERBERT BATE COMPANY v. J. N. BRYANT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe remainder judgment for the difference between plaintiff\u2019s claim and defendant\u2019s counterclaim, is sanctioned by what is said in Sewing Machine Co. v. Burger, 181 N. C., 241.\nThe controversy on trial narrowed itself to issues of fact, which the jury alone could determine. The evidence was plenary and conflicting on both issues. There is no reversible error appearing on the record. The exceptions relating to the exclusion of evidence must be resolved in favor of the validity of the trial. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George Rountree for plaintiff.",
      "Herbert McClammy and K. 0. Burgwin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. HERBERT BATE COMPANY v. J. N. BRYANT.\n(Filed 28 October, 1925.)\nAppeal by defendant from Bunn, J., at April Term, 1925, of New-HANOVER.\nCivil action tried-upon tbe following issues:\n\u201c1. Is tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $1,350.82 witb interest at 6% from 15 September, 1917.\n\u201c2. Is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $140.86, with 6% interest from 15 March, 1917.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff for the difference between the answers to the first and second issues, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nGeorge Rountree for plaintiff.\nHerbert McClammy and K. 0. Burgwin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0868-02",
  "first_page_order": 972,
  "last_page_order": 973
}