{
  "id": 8632144,
  "name": "O. O. SNOW et ux. v. W. C. LOMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Snow v. Loman",
  "decision_date": "1929-11-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "794",
  "last_page": "794",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 794"
    }
  ],
  "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": 129,
    "char_count": 1193,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "sha256": "de8b11568296092d84be574846d60369e972ea82db2ad69f17a58e825f853d62",
    "simhash": "1:8626194e6a3e7542",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. O. SNOW et ux. v. W. C. LOMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe principal question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the issue of fraud. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the evidence in this regard, while slight, was such as to require its submission to the jury. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the testimony of the witnesses in detail, as the chief question presented is whether it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and we think it is.\nThe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ratcliff, Hudson & Ferrell for plaintiffs.",
      "Parrish & Deal for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. O. SNOW et ux. v. W. C. LOMAN.\n(Filed 6 November, 1929.)\nAppeal by defendant from Finley, J., at June Term, 1929, of Eobsytii.\nCivil action tried upon the following determinative issues:\n\u201cWere the plaintiffs induced by the fraud of the defendant to sell and convey their property and to accept as part payment therefor the $5,509 note, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\nWhat amount, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $5,397, with interest from 10 February, 1928.\u201d\nFrom a judgment on the verdict the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nRatcliff, Hudson & Ferrell for plaintiffs.\nParrish & Deal for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0794-01",
  "first_page_order": 858,
  "last_page_order": 858
}