{
  "id": 8630020,
  "name": "LONNIE BLIZZARD v. W. C. MOORE and R. J. DAWSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blizzard v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1928-10-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "807",
  "last_page": "808",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 807"
    }
  ],
  "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": 113,
    "char_count": 1182,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "sha256": "684338dc984b1a52e11fd943b2cafcee4e932404def0d2ede8d0cf793c693678",
    "simhash": "1:d0b1dd9c3a9bf300",
    "word_count": 201
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LONNIE BLIZZARD v. W. C. MOORE and R. J. DAWSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was a conflict between the evidence offered by-plaintiff and that offered by defendants with respect to the contract entered into between the parties. The judge\u2019s charge is not contained in the record, and it is therefore to be assumed that he correctly instructed the jury upon every phase of the ease. An issue of fact was thus drawn for the determination of the jury, and the verdict therefore determines the merits of the case.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Qowper, Whitaker & Allen for plaintiff.",
      "F. F. Wallace and Shaw & Jones for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LONNIE BLIZZARD v. W. C. MOORE and R. J. DAWSON.\n(Filed 17 October, 1928.)\nCivil ACTION, tried before Cranmer, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1928, of LbNOIE.\nThe plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of certain sand purchased by the defendants. The defendants denied that they had purchased sand, but alleged that a verbal contract existed between them and the plaintiff for the purchase of land, including a sand-pit owned by the plaintiff, and that the sand used by them was to be credited on the purchase price.\nThe jury answered the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment upon the verdict defendants appealed.\nQowper, Whitaker & Allen for plaintiff.\nF. F. Wallace and Shaw & Jones for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0807-02",
  "first_page_order": 887,
  "last_page_order": 888
}