{
  "id": 8628950,
  "name": "STANDARD OIL COMPANY v. W. C. MOORE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Standard Oil Co. v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1928-03-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 305"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 S. E., 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253391
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. E., 607",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0203-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1488,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20730687387565838
    },
    "sha256": "cb2401083efb158beee6f9b9f5767b0b09b75396157a99e45a46ff08874ff8b6",
    "simhash": "1:9a697d347242965b",
    "word_count": 257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STANDARD OIL COMPANY v. W. C. MOORE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nReversed on authority of Refining Corporation v. Sanders, 190 N. C., 203, 129 S. E., 607, and Bogert v. Mfg. Co., 172 N. C., 248, 90 S. E., 208.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cowper, Whitalcer & Allen for plaintiff.",
      "F. E. Wallace and Shaw <& Jones for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STANDARD OIL COMPANY v. W. C. MOORE et al.\n(Filed 14 March, 1928.)\nTrial \u2014 Motion to Nonsuit \u2014 Evidence Held Sufficient to Go to Jury.\nIt is error to grant a judgment as of nonsuit in plaintiff\u2019s action to recover for goods sold and delivered when there is evidence tending to show that a check marked paid, introduced in the trial, did not cover the transaction, though, upon its face it purports to be \u201cin full of all accounts to date.\u201d Refining Corporation v. Sanders, 190 N. G., 203, and other cases cited as controlling.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cranmer, J., at December Term, 1927, of LeNOIR.\nCivil action to recover $631.05, witb interest, for goods sold by plaintiff and delivered to defendants on wbat is styled tbe \u201cColumbia account.\u201d\nTbe defendants offered in evidence a check for $3,681.98, made payable to tbe plaintiff, bearing notation: \u201cPayment in full of all accounts to date,\u201d and contended that the account in suit was covered by said payment.\nBut there was evidence that this check was given to plaintiff\u2019s agent at Kinston and that it only covered accounts in bis district, which did not include the Columbia account.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit entered at .the close of all the evidence the plaintiff appeals.\nCowper, Whitalcer & Allen for plaintiff.\nF. E. Wallace and Shaw <& Jones for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-02",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 378
}