{
  "id": 8622383,
  "name": "CORBITT TRUCK COMPANY v. W. H. AVERETT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corbitt Truck Co. v. Averett",
  "decision_date": "1930-05-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "825",
  "last_page": "826",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 825"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1312,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "sha256": "c99966a8980c9354bc63d4e5c31b6183648d7877c2e7b580648d6e15f8076315",
    "simhash": "1:0281862c38c54b17",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CORBITT TRUCK COMPANY v. W. H. AVERETT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cue-iam.\nThe case was tried upon the sole theory that the defendants were partners. The law of partnership as applied to the facts^ was accurately defined and expounded by the trial judge. The evidence warranted the submission of the cause to the jury, and the verdict of the jury determines the merits of the controversy.\nNo error of law is disclosed and the judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cue-iam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hancock & Taylor and Gatling, Morris & Parker for plaintiff.'",
      "Thormuell Lamer for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CORBITT TRUCK COMPANY v. W. H. AVERETT et al.\n(Filed 28 May, 1930.)\nCivil aotioN, before Devin, J., at October Term, 1929, of GeaNville.\nThe plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were partners, and that on or about 17 October, 1927, it sold a passenger bus to the defendant, W. H. Averett, and that in purchasing said bus the said Averett was acting for and in behalf and as agent for the partnership. The defendant denied partnership.\nThe trial judge submitted the following issue to the jury: \u201cWere the defendants, Valeria Averett and John W. Hester, partners of the defendant, ~W. H. Averett, and, as such, jointly liable for the purchase of the bus, as alleged in the complaint ?\u201d\nThe jury answered the issue \u201cNo.\u201d\nFrom judgment upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed.\nHancock & Taylor and Gatling, Morris & Parker for plaintiff.'\nThormuell Lamer for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0825-02",
  "first_page_order": 895,
  "last_page_order": 896
}