{
  "id": 8619004,
  "name": "JOSEPH STOFFER v. W. H. GRIFFIN, Trading as ELECTRIK MAID BAKE SHOP",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stoffer v. Griffin",
  "decision_date": "1925-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "869",
  "last_page": "870",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 N.C. 869"
    }
  ],
  "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": 145,
    "char_count": 1628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "sha256": "7a37fbad9eed51d64f8d7b07a91345e59584aab7065bc2afae9ac33f51b91ff6",
    "simhash": "1:bf98bcd447426660",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672014+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH STOFFER v. W. H. GRIFFIN, Trading as ELECTRIK MAID BAKE SHOP."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe verdict was as follows :\n\u201c1. What amount, if any, is the defendant due on his contract of 24 October, 1922? Answer: $2,750 with interest from 16 January, 1923.\n\u201c2. Is the plaintiff entitled to the possession of the property taken on claim and delivery? Answer: Tes.\n\u201c3. What was the reasonable market value of the property at the time it was taken on claim and delivery? Answer: $2,750.\n\u201c4. Did the plaintiff\u2019s assignor, the Electrik Maid Bake Shop, breach that part of the contract providing that it agreed \u2018to furnish said party of second part the services of its master baker for not exceeding -two weeks to break in the baker to be employed by the said second party and familiarize him with the use- of said equipment? Answer: No.\n\u201c5. If so, what damage, if any, did the defendant sustain by reason of said breach of such contract ? Answer: .\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s exceptions relate to the competency of evidence pertaining to the third issue and to the contentions of the plaintiff as given to the jury in the charge.\nThe case was correctly tried, and the controversy on the third issue was wholly within the domain of fact, and that has been determined by the jury in a trial free from prejudicial error.\nLet it be certified that there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fuller & Fuller for plaintiff.",
      "Brawley & Gnatt for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH STOFFER v. W. H. GRIFFIN, Trading as ELECTRIK MAID BAKE SHOP.\n(Filed 28 October, 1925.)\nAppeal from Dueham Superior Court, Calvert, J.\nAction hy Joseph Stoffer against W. H. Griffin, trading as Electrik Maid Bake Shop. Judgment for plaintiff on a jury verdict and defendant appeals. No error.\nFuller & Fuller for plaintiff.\nBrawley & Gnatt for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0869-01",
  "first_page_order": 973,
  "last_page_order": 974
}