{
  "id": 2217828,
  "name": "CLAUD GREENE v. VANN & BROTHER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greene v. Vann & Bro.",
  "decision_date": "1927-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "834",
  "last_page": "835",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 834"
    }
  ],
  "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": 128,
    "char_count": 1170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "sha256": "f5a212dee3d8d2c816e821c44bcb4cbd00c43d4c4734432657178e064f53d9fa",
    "simhash": "1:0483447b15e34b6f",
    "word_count": 192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLAUD GREENE v. VANN & BROTHER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis controversy in its final analysis involves issues of fact only. The jury found the facts against the plaintiff upon a fair and proper charge by the court. All errors assigned by the plaintiff have been carefully examined, and upon the whole record we find no error of law warranting a new trial. The judgment is therefore\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. C. B. Ehringhaus, Bridget & Eley cmd Craig & Pritchett for plaintiff. ' .",
      "W. W. Rogers, W. H. S. Burgwyn and Stanley Winborne for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLAUD GREENE v. VANN & BROTHER.\n(Filed 2 March, 1927.)\nCivil action, before Calvert, J., at October Term, 1926, of Hertford.\nThis was an action for damages for- unfair competition.\nThe issues and answers of the jury thereto wei.e as follows :\n1. Did the defendants wilfully injure or undertake to destroy or injure the business of plaintiff with the putpose or intention of attempting to fix the prices of the commodities referred to when the competition was removed? Answer:-No. .\n2. If so, what actual damages, if any, has plaintiff sustained by reason of same ? Answer: ............\nUpon the verdict judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.\nJ. C. B. Ehringhaus, Bridget & Eley cmd Craig & Pritchett for plaintiff. ' .\nW. W. Rogers, W. H. S. Burgwyn and Stanley Winborne for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0834-02",
  "first_page_order": 912,
  "last_page_order": 913
}