{
  "id": 8625758,
  "name": "FEDERAL FINANCE AND CREDIT COMPANY v. MARSHALL TEETER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Federal Finance & Credit Co. v. Teeter",
  "decision_date": "1928-10-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "232",
  "last_page": "233",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 232"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N. C., 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0464-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217867
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0299-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3010,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3669601972933557
    },
    "sha256": "3742688eee96d2c4ef267c1406dc94932e399fa39a0916776a7438960ba7ab1f",
    "simhash": "1:cc2d4b945a01d621",
    "word_count": 524
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FEDERAL FINANCE AND CREDIT COMPANY v. MARSHALL TEETER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis was a civil action brought by plaintiff to recover balance due on an automobile with the ancillary remedy of claim and delivery for said automobile, the same being replevied by the defendant upon the giving of a bond in the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200).\nTbe first question: \u201cCan all tbe questions involved in an action, including tbe liability of tbe surety on replevin bond, be settled in one suit ratber tban bringing separate and independent actions?\u201d\nWe tbink so, under our liberal practice. Tbe defendant gave an undertaking \u201cwith damages for tbe deterioration and detention.\u201d\nIn Moore v. Edwards, 192 N. C., at p. 448, it was said: \u201cWe can find no statutory provision prohibiting separate actions in a ease of tbis kind. It is no doubt better 'practice to.try out the entire controversy in one actionSee Polson v. Strickland, 193 N. C., 299; Crump v. Love, 193 N. C., 464.\nSecond. \u201cWhere, from all'tbe evidence before tbe court tbe jury can draw but one inference, will a new trial be granted on account of .error in tbe charge of tbe trial judge ?\u201d\nWhen tbe replevy bond was given by defendant, it was for $1,200 (C. S., 836), \u201cto the effect that they are bound in double tbe value of tbe property.\u201d So, when tbe property was replevied and taken by defendant, it was valued at $600. Defendant kept tbe car for some eighteen months and it was returned to plaintiff. All of tbe evidence was to tbe effect that it was in bad condition, and when sold at public auction, after notice, a large crowd being present, it only brought $26.\nOne of tbe witnesses testified: \u201cIt brought as much or more tban it was worth.\u201d Another testified: \u201cI have bad experience in selling secondhand automobiles as an auctioneer. I tbink the car brought all it was worth at that time.\u201d\nIt will be noted that tbe jury deducted tbe $26, tbe amount tbe automobile sold for, from tbe $600, and their verdict was for $574. Tbe jury were warranted on all tbe evidence to return tbe verdict they did. Tbe charge on tbe measure of damage, although erroneous, was harmless.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. H. Sykes and B. P. Beade for \u2018plaintiff.",
      "Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FEDERAL FINANCE AND CREDIT COMPANY v. MARSHALL TEETER.\n(Filed 24 October, 1928.)\n1. Replevin \u2014 Parties\u2014Surety\u2014Claim and Delivery.\nTbe liability of the surety on a replevy bond in claim and delivery is not required to be determined in a separate action.\n2. Trial \u2014 Instructions\u2014Harmless Error.\nWhere but one inference of fact can be drawn from all the evidence in the case, and the jury has accordingly so answered the issue, an erroneous instruction thereon is not reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant from Bond, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1928, of Durham.\nNo error.\nThe issue submitted to the jury and the answer thereto were as follows : \u201cWhat, damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained on account of the wrongful detention of said automobile by the defendant since the issuance of claim and delivery herein? Answer: $574, with interest.\u201d\nB. H. Sykes and B. P. Beade for \u2018plaintiff.\nHartsell & Hartsell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0232-01",
  "first_page_order": 312,
  "last_page_order": 313
}