{
  "id": 8632779,
  "name": "H. F. BYRD v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byrd v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1928-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "873",
  "last_page": "873",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 873"
    }
  ],
  "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": 146,
    "char_count": 1497,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "sha256": "22e2c9ea79e866290a89c47632194ab538f893993527e77b0504d16901bde483",
    "simhash": "1:c46a850f60e0a1f5",
    "word_count": 242
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. F. BYRD v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe plaintiff, a resident of Duplin County, is a broker engaged in buying and selling vegetables. On 2 June, 1925, be delivered to the defendant for transportation from Goldsboro to the Potomac Yards, Virginia, 494 baskets of beans, consigned to himself. The next day be reconsigned the shipment to Anderson & Johnson, Pittsburgh, Pa,, and requested the defendant to divert the shipment to these consignees. Anderson & Johnson, for a valuable consideration, sold, assigned, and transferred all their interest in the claim to U. S. Traffic and Claim Company. Anderson testified that be \u201cwithdrew the claim\u201d; but be did not testify that the Traffic and Claim Company bad reassigned the claim, and as they bad purchased it for value bis \u201cwithdrawal\u201d could hardly affect their interest.\nThe plaintiff and Anderson offered to testify that Anderson & Johnson bad made a verbal transfer of the claim back to the plaintiff; but for more than one reason this evidence, in our opinion, was properly excluded. So, too, as to evidence tending to contradict the written assignments. The other exceptions to evidence are without merit.\nAt the close of the evidence the action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit. As the record is presented here, we find no error. Judgment\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Faison Thomson for plaintiff.",
      "Lcmgston, Allen & Taylor for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. F. BYRD v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 18 April, 1928.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Grady, J., at October Term, 1927, of WayNe.\nAffirmed.\nJ. Faison Thomson for plaintiff.\nLcmgston, Allen & Taylor for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0873-01",
  "first_page_order": 945,
  "last_page_order": 945
}