{
  "id": 8624504,
  "name": "WARD & WARD v. DORA AGRILLO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ward v. Agrillo",
  "decision_date": "1928-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 95"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 S. E., 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606518
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0321-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072365995083111
    },
    "sha256": "9303325a859644693c3c0cf901a90d2af7ab3fab9ce8fd6f3a964b74d61fbf57",
    "simhash": "1:bd8ca4307ee9bfd0",
    "word_count": 501
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WARD & WARD v. DORA AGRILLO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nWe have examined the record and case on appeal in this action with care. The assignments of error, appearing in the case on appeal, and discussed in the briefs filed in this Court upon defendant\u2019s appeal, cannot be sustained. We find no error for which the order setting aside the verdict, as a matter of law, should be reversed. The order is affirmed.\nThe judge finds, as recited in the order, that it was agreed at February Term, 1928, of the Superior Court of Craven County that the court might take any action on the verdict out of term and out of the county that it could have taken during said term. Stipulations to this effect, signed by counsel, appear in the record. Both parties to the action were represented by counsel when plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict was heard and signed at Kinston, N. C., on 25 May, 1928.\nDefendant\u2019s exception to the judgment by default and inquiry, and her appeal therefrom, upon the facts appearing in the record, were abandoned. It does not appear that there is merit in the exception; the judgment by default and inquiry is valid. By virtue of said judgment plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least a nominal sum. As his Honor properly held, there was error on the trial for which the verdict should have been set aside as a matter of law. Upon the next trial the jury should be instructed that plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least nominal damages. C. S., 596, and cases cited.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. L. Ward, Whitehurst & Barden and W. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for plaintiffs.",
      "Shaw & Jones and B. G. Beckwith for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WARD & WARD v. DORA AGRILLO.\n(Filed 26 September, 1928.)\n1. Trial \u2014 Verdict\u2014Setting Aside Verdict.\nA verdict may be set aside out of term and out of tbe county under an ' agreement of counsel authorizing tbe judge to do so.\n2. Attorney and Client \u2014 Pees.\nAttorneys rendering services to a party litigant are entitled to at least nominal compensation in their action to recover upon quantum meruit.\nAppeal by defendant from order of Harris, J., signed at Kinston, N. C., on 25 May, 1928.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action to recover for professional services rendered to defendant, at her request, by plaintiffs, attorneys and counsellors at law, begun and pending in the Superior Court of Craven County. A former appeal by defendant to this Court was dismissed. 194 N. C., 321, 139 S. E., 451.\nJudgment by default and inquiry was rendered by the clerk of said court on 25 July, 1927. At February Term, 1928, the action was tried, and the following issue was then submitted to the jury:\n\u201cWhat amount are plaintiffs entitled to recover of the defendant?\u201d\nThis issue was answered, \u201cNothing.\u201d From an order signed by the trial judge at Kinston, N. 0., on 25 May, 1928, setting aside the verdict as a matter of law, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nD. L. Ward, Whitehurst & Barden and W. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for plaintiffs.\nShaw & Jones and B. G. Beckwith for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 176
}