{
  "id": 8620371,
  "name": "N. B. JOSEY COMPANY v. MRS. KATIE L. YARBORO and O. Y. YARBORO",
  "name_abbreviation": "N. B. Josey Co. v. Yarboro",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "796",
  "last_page": "797",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 796"
    }
  ],
  "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": 191,
    "char_count": 2344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "sha256": "23e7ca25b175ff5d31d72f415957536e053892bdd27c899b2b36ee1f4c9e3c83",
    "simhash": "1:c6eb438bf564302e",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. B. JOSEY COMPANY v. MRS. KATIE L. YARBORO and O. Y. YARBORO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Otjeiam.\nTbe record discloses tbat tbe charge of tbe court below covers nineteen pages. In tbe charge each issue was read to tbe jury and tbe contentions of tbe parties carefully given on same and tbe law applicable. \u00a5e can discover no error in tbe charge nor in tbe admission or exclusion of evidence. In tbe nineteen pages of tbe charge of tbe court below tbe \u201cspecific\u201d exceptions to tbe charge are not set forth.\n\u201cWe have no power here except to \u2018review upon appeal any decision of tbe courts below, upon, any matter of law or legal inference.\u2019 Const. . of N. C., part Art. IY, sec. 8.\u201d Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., p. 428.\nIt may be noted tbat no legal authorities are cited in tbe briefs of tbe learned counsel for plaintiff or defendant. Tbe facts as found by tbe jury were in favor of plaintiff and against tbe defendant.. On tbe record we can find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Otjeiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Travis & Travis and Ashby Dunn for plaintiff.",
      "Ben T. Holden, W. H. Yarborough and White & Malone for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. B. JOSEY COMPANY v. MRS. KATIE L. YARBORO and O. Y. YARBORO.\n(Filed 12 October, 1927.)\nAppeal by Katie L. Yarboro from Grady, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1927, of Halifax.\nNo error.\nTbe following are tbe issues submitted to tbe jury and their answers thereto:\n\u201c1. Did Mrs. Kate L. Yarboro endorse tbe note for $3,445, made by O. Y. Yarboro to tbe plaintiff, upon the promise of N. B. Josey that be would discount her four notes, each in tbe sum of $5,000, secured by a deed of trust on lands in Franklin County, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: No.\n\u201c2. At tbe time of tbe delivery to tbe plaintiff of tbe $20,000 notes, referred to in tbe first issue, did tbe plaintiff agree in consideration thereof that it would cancel and surrender to tbe defendants tbe $10,000 note made by Mrs. Kate L. Yarboro to E. H. Malone, and assigned by O. Y. Yarboro to tbe plaintiff, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. After tbe plaintiff failed to discount said $20,000 worth of notes, did tbe plaintiff agree to release tbe $10,000 note and deed of trust, and thereby restore tbe defendants to tbe same position that they occupied before tbe execution of tbe said $10,000 note? Answer: No.\u201d\nJudgment by tbe court below was duly rendered on the issues. Defendant Katie L. Yarboro made numerous exceptions and assignments of error and'appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nTravis & Travis and Ashby Dunn for plaintiff.\nBen T. Holden, W. H. Yarborough and White & Malone for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0796-01",
  "first_page_order": 864,
  "last_page_order": 865
}