{
  "id": 8629671,
  "name": "CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY v. W. P. ROSE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Concrete Steel Co. v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1929-09-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "465",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 464"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 N. C., 422",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652223
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0422-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S. E., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273604
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S. E., 138",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2419,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.112724912833455e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4272465305892351
    },
    "sha256": "f093ecc18ef00ef853bccf4a7264486136a312f7fdda9b3c60c7b10c15dc7e31",
    "simhash": "1:04112e143360afe4",
    "word_count": 416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY v. W. P. ROSE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nConceding, without deciding, that tbe judgment may have been irregularly entered, still it appears that tbe correct result has been reached, and no barm can come from allowing the judgment to stand. Sucb was the course pursued in Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32. It would seem that as the appealing defendant is not entitled to recover against the plaintiff on bis counterclaim, any error committed on the trial was harmless. Cherry v. Canal Co., 140 N. C., 422, 53 S. E., 138. \u201cA new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant.\u201d Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215.\nTbe action of the trial court in dismissing the counterclaim and awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff will be.upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Langston, Allen & Taylor for playnMff.",
      "Kenneth O. Roy\u00e1ll and W. A. Finch for defendant. ."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY v. W. P. ROSE et al.\n(Filed 25 September, 1929.)\nAppeal and Error 3 e \u2014 Where ruling excepted to does not harm appellant a new tidal will not be granted.\nA new trial will not be granted on appeal when the action of the trial judge excepted to can by no possibility injure the appellant.\nAppeal by defendant, W. P. Rose, from Graklv, J., at April Term, 1929, of Wayne.\nCivil action to recover for steel fabricated by plaintiff and sold to tbe contractor for use in tbe construction of tbe Wilson County courthouse.\nIt is conceded that tbe general contractor, W. P. Rose, is liable to tbe plaintiff for tbe value of tbe steel fabricated and used in tbe construction of said courthouse. Tbe only question in dispute is whether tbe plaintiff is liable to tbe contractor on bis counterclaim for damages sustained by him on account of a change in tbe plans, necessitating less steel and more concrete than called for in tbe original drawings, which change was approved by tbe supervising architect, E. A. Bishop. Tbe general contractor alleges that be was not notified of tbe change until it was too late to protect himself from loss. Tbe trial court 'was of tbe opinion, and so held, that any claim which tbe general contractor may have for additional concrete would not be chargeable against tbe plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly.\nNo cause of action being stated against tbe other defendants, demurrers interposed by them were sustained.\nTbe defendant, W. P. Rose, appeals, assigning errors.\nLangston, Allen & Taylor for playnMff.\nKenneth O. Roy\u00e1ll and W. A. Finch for defendant. ."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 529
}