{
  "id": 8621107,
  "name": "C. H. SCALES v. R. E. WALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scales v. Wall",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "804",
  "last_page": "805",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 804"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654861
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0536-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1771,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.226624621469605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26856449932023063
    },
    "sha256": "73ef55252535ecd3ffc397f711b8e86e23c0bdac3253fd374b7dbabba582bdc2",
    "simhash": "1:ee0081413f8e0765",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. H. SCALES v. R. E. WALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe only matter involved in the controversy which is the subject of this action is whether or not defendant agreed, prior to tbe sale and delivery of supplies to bis tenants, to pay plaintiff for same. There was evidence tending to support tbe contention of eacb of tbe parties witb respect to tbis matter. Tbis evidence was submitted to tbe jury, wbo returned a verdict for tbe plaintiff. We find no error, and tbe judgment is affirmed.\nDefendant\u2019s motion, made in tbis Court for a new trial, for newly discovered evidence is denied. It appears from tbe affidavits filed upon tbe bearing of tbis motion, tbat tbe evidence wbicb defendant alleges be has discovered since tbe trial, is merely cumulative. At best it tends only to contradict tbe plaintiff and to corroborate tbe defendant, botb of wbom testified at tbe trial. See Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N. C., 536. Tbe rule there stated is as follows: \u201cTbe Supreme Court will not order a new trial for newly discovered evidence tbat is merely' cumulative, or without probability tbat tbe result will thereby be changed.\u201d\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bwinlc, Clement & Hutchins for plaintiff.",
      "McMichael & McMichael and Manly, Hendren & Womble for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. H. SCALES v. R. E. WALL.\n(Filed 9 November, 1927.)\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at June Term, 1921, of RockiNgham.\nNo error.\nAction to recover upon accounts for supplies sold and delivered by plaintiff, a merchant, to tenants of defendant, a landlord. Plaintiff alleged that prior to the sale and delivery of said supplies defendant agreed to pay for same; this allegation was denied by defendant. The issue was answered by the jury in accordance with the contention of plaintiff.\nFrom judgment upon the verdict defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nBwinlc, Clement & Hutchins for plaintiff.\nMcMichael & McMichael and Manly, Hendren & Womble for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0804-01",
  "first_page_order": 872,
  "last_page_order": 873
}