{
  "id": 8627283,
  "name": "SAMUEL WOLF v. H. GOLDSTEIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wolf v. Goldstein",
  "decision_date": "1926-10-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "818",
  "last_page": "819",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 818"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 N. C., 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0810-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653747
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657139
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659292
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N. C., 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0540-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3123,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1950301672456634e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7744737241437628
    },
    "sha256": "1238c5a25b53b2417fee7ad50c73dd2870def4a9f1da26a2d795537297d1473b",
    "simhash": "1:3001d4237f44622b",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SAMUEL WOLF v. H. GOLDSTEIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuriaM.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover on certain notes alleged to have been executed by defendant to Mylisb, Mann & Drucker, for a valuable consideration, before maturity, endorsed, sold and delivered to tbe plaintiff by payee. That no part of tbe notes have been paid, and that tbe same are due and owing.\nDefendant sets up certain defenses not necessary to set forth.\nTbe issues submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answers thereto, were as follows:\n\u201c1. Were tbe notes sued upon extorted from tbe defendant by threatening to defeat tbe offer of composition made by him in tbe bankruptcy proceeding's instituted against him? Answer: No.\n\u201c2. Were tbe notes sued upon procured from tbe defendant in fraud of bis other creditors? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. Were tbe notes sued upon executed by defendant upon tbe condition that they were to be void if tbe offer of composition made by him was declined by tbe United States Court in Bankruptcy? Answer: No.\n\u201c\u00e9. Is tbe plaintiff tbe bolder in due course of tbe notes sued upon? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c5. Is tbe plaintiff owner of tbe notes? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c6. What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover % Answer: $1,200 and interest at 6 per cent per annum from dates of notes.\u201d\nUpon tbe coming in of tbe verdict, plaintiff tendered judgment to tbe court below in accordance with tbe jury finding. Tbe court below made tbe following order: \u201cTbe verdict in tbis cause is set aside in tbe discretion of tbe court.\u201d Plaintiff assigned error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court: \u201cFor tbat tbe court refused to sign tbe judgment tendered by plaintiff as set forth in tbe record and set aside tbe verdict in bis discretion and allowed tbe defendant tbe right to file an amended answer of payment.\u201d\nTbe trial court has a discretion in respect to setting aside verdict, exercise of which, in tbe absence of abuse, is not reviewable in tbe Supreme Court. 15 Enc. Digest of N. C. Reports, p. 112 and cases cited.\nWalker, J., in Jarrett v. Trunk Co., 142 N. C., p. 469, says: \u201cWhile tbe necessity for exercising tbis discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by tbe mere inclination of tbe judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment, in an effort to attain'the end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.\u201d Billings v. Charlotte Observer, 150 N. C., 540; Hensley v. Furniture Co., 164 N. C., 148; Settee v. Electric Ry., 170 N. C., 365; Forester v. Betts, 179 N. C., 608; Likas v. Lackey, 186 N. C., 398; S. v. Sauls, 190 N. C., 810.\nTbe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuriaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rodgers & Rodgers for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SAMUEL WOLF v. H. GOLDSTEIN.\n(Filed 27 October, 1926.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Judgments Set Aside \u2014 Discretion o\u00ed Court.\nThe discretion, of a trial judge to set aside a verdict is practically unlimited, and will not be reviewed on appeal except in matters of abuse, instances not likely to arise.\nAppeal by plaintiff from MidyeUe, J., at March Civil Term, 1926, of New Haitoveb. Affirmed.\nRodgers & Rodgers for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0818-01",
  "first_page_order": 892,
  "last_page_order": 893
}