{
  "id": 8608705,
  "name": "W. E. WOOD v. AVERY JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wood v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1930-02-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "356",
  "last_page": "357",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 356"
    }
  ],
  "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": "191 N. C., 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654109
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653926
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652803
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650642
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651688
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.606997171242164e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6848990037643121
    },
    "sha256": "f0b44a132b4ad07265f6d0376265aea4308878e21c4f2cdf599342935d213047",
    "simhash": "1:93ed483e37329b4a",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. E. WOOD v. AVERY JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaRKSON, J.\nIn tbe light o\u00a3 tbe record, we think the second issue ambiguous, and no judgment should have been rendered on the verdict. 27 R. C. L., under \u201cVerdict,\u201d p. 858, part sec. 30, speaking to the subject, says: \u201cA verdict should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity. The jury cannot find both for the plaintiff and the defendant on the same issue, as for instance, by a verdict giving the plaintiff damages and finding the defendant not guilty. And a verdict which is too uncertain or indefinite to be construed either as a general or special verdict may be rejected by the court as meaningless and of no effect.\u201d In Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., at p. 518, it is said: \u201cThe court was without authority to reverse the jury\u2019s finding on the second issue, answer it himself, and then render judgment on the verdict as amended. Garland v. Arrowood, 177 N. C., 373; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 99 N. C., 436.\u201d See Bartholomew v. Parrish, 186 N. C., 81; Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 187 N. C., 417; Alston v. Alston, 189 N. C., 299; Sitterson v. Sitterson, 191 N. C., 319. There must be a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaRKSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aydlett & Simpson for plaintiff.",
      "Hhringhaus & Hall for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. E. WOOD v. AVERY JONES.\n(Filed 19 February, 1930.)\nTrial F a \u2014 Where it appears,that on\u00a9 of the issues submitted to the jury was ambiguous a new trial will he awarded.\nWhere issues of. negligence, contributory negligence, and damages are submitted to the jury in a personal injury action, and the jury answers the first two in the affirmative and awards damages, a new trial will be awarded on appeal if it appears, in the light of the record, that the second issue was ambiguous.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1929, of PasquotaNK. New trial.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged ? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did the defendant by his own negligence contribute to his injury? Answer: Yes. \u25a0\n3. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $250.\u201d\nThe court below on the verdict as rendered gave judgment in fa.vor of plaintiff. Defendant excepted and assigned error and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAydlett & Simpson for plaintiff.\nHhringhaus & Hall for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0356-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 427
}