{ "id": 8631155, "name": "J. N. COE & COMPANY, Inc., v. FIRST REALTY AND LOAN COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "J. N. Coe & Co. v. First Realty & Loan Co.", "decision_date": "1929-11-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "689", "last_page": "691", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 N.C. 689" } ], "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": "43 S. E., 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657655 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S. E., 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 793", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0793-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S. E., 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654315 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S. E., 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S. E., 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270903 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S. E., 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652016 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. C., 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/44/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S. E., 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652844 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0248-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 317, "char_count": 4244, "ocr_confidence": 0.476, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.4732217978731579 }, "sha256": "6051dbeafc956fe672b6acf77a8b7a42d6388cfaf54c16fb7b28818a6bf43ee5", "simhash": "1:342bb27a3b32529d", "word_count": 755 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. N. COE & COMPANY, Inc., v. FIRST REALTY AND LOAN COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThe following excerpt, taken from the charge, constitutes one of the defendant\u2019s exceptive assignments of error:\n\u201cWhat that award is, as to the amount, gentlemen, is not before you, because it might be some evidence, or control or prejudice you in some way. As to the way they decided the matter isn\u2019t for you at all. You are to decide it under the instructions of the court, and from the evidence in the case.\u201d\nThe submission, which is the basis of every arbitration and award, being sufficient in the instant case, both in substance and in form, as well as the award made in pursuance thereof, and the latter having been offered in evidence without objection, we think it was error on the part of the trial court to withdraw the award from the consideration of the jury. Mayberry v. Mayberry, 121 N. C., 248, 28 S. E., 349; Moore v. Gherkin, 44 N. C., 73.\nIf an unquestioned arbitration and award be valid as an estoppel when properly pleaded and proved, it would seem to follow as a necessary corollary that it must be competent as evidence to establish such defense. Williams v. Mfg. Co., 154 N. C., 205, 70 S. E., 290, S. c., 153 N. C., 7, 68 S. E., 902; Geiger v. Caldwell, 184 N. C., 387, 114 S. E., 497; Hemphill v. Gaither, 180 N. C., 604, 105 S. E., 183; 2 R. C. L., 388.\nIt is true that in other portions of tbe charge, the award is treated as properly being in evidence, but whether it was considered or discarded by the jury in answering the first issue, we are not able to say. Where there are conflicting instructions with respect to a material matter, a new trial will be granted, as the jury is not presumed to know which one of the two states the law correctly, and we cannot say that the erroneous instruction was not followed. S. v. Falkner, 182 N. C., 793, 108 S. E., 756; Edwards v. R. R., 132 N. C., 99, 43 S. E., 585.\n. There are other exceptions appearing in the record, worthy of consideration, but as the questions presented thereby are not likely to arise on another hearing, we shall not consider them now.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "A. G. Davis and Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff.", "Hoyle & Hairrison, J. S. Duncan, King, Sapp & King and Sidney S. Alderman for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. N. COE & COMPANY, Inc., v. FIRST REALTY AND LOAN COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 November, 1929.)\n1. Arbitration and Award E a \u2014 In this case held: instruction that award should not be considered by jury was erroneous.\nWhere an award is set iip in tbe defendant\u2019s answer in an action by the plaintiff to recover for materials furnished the defendant, and the award is attacked for being improperly, unlawfully and unfairly made, and the award was admitted in evidence without objection, a charge of the court to the jury that it could not consider the award is error to the defendant\u2019s prejudice, entitling him to a new trial.\nS. Trial E c \u2014 Conflicting instructions on a material phase of the case entitles party prejudiced thereby to a new trial.\nWhere the trial court gives conflicting instructions upon a material phase of the case it cannot be assumed that the jury followed the correct part of the charge in answering, the issue, and a new trial will be awarded on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Moore, J., at March Term, 1929, of G-uilpobd.\nCivil action to recover for work and labor done and materials furnished in erecting buildings on lots in the city of Greensboro belonging to the-defendant.\nUpon denial of liability and plea of estoppel by arbitration and award, issues were submitted to the jury and answered as follows:\n\u201c1. Was the award set up in defendant\u2019s answer improperly, unlawfully and unfairly made? Answer: Yes.\n2. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: Yes, $17,981.55, with interest until paid from 20 August, 1927.\n3. Is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant, and if so, in what amount? Answer: Yes, $1,301.44, with interest from date of obligation until paid.\n4. Did the plaintiff file its notice and claim of lien within six months from the furnishing of the last labor and material used in the construction of the buildings on the property referred to in the complaint, as therein alleged? Answer: Yes.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nA. G. Davis and Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff.\nHoyle & Hairrison, J. S. Duncan, King, Sapp & King and Sidney S. Alderman for defendant." }, "file_name": "0689-01", "first_page_order": 753, "last_page_order": 755 }