{
  "id": 8622656,
  "name": "J. H. STOCKTON v. H. R. LENOIR, Trustee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stockton v. Lenoir",
  "decision_date": "1931-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 88"
    }
  ],
  "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": "198 N. C., 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600891
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 S. E., 847",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S. E., 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656292
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 320",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S. E., 886",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600891
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2193,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.381598775612222e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7968815942551091
    },
    "sha256": "2aad16fad35b45ab5e9b2ad08dd5abeede836a558c82fa942720507dffa0392c",
    "simhash": "1:7cc7dc8f25908bf3",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. STOCKTON v. H. R. LENOIR, Trustee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stagy, C. J.\nThe facts ar\u00e9 fully set out in the first appeal as reported in 198 N. C., 148, 150 S. E., 886, to which reference may be had to avoid repetition.\nWe there held that, while the stipulation appearing on the face of each of the notes did not ipsissimis verbis provide for payment exclusively out of funds to be collected from corresponding note of the purchasers, . Almazov and Albert, yet, in view of the allegations of the answer, taken in connection with the stipulations appearing in the notes, it was open to tbe defendant to sbow by parol, .if be could, tbat sucb was tbe understanding of tbe parties. Unless tbe defendant is able to establish tbis under tbe principles announced in Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470, 137 S. E., 320, Typewriter Co. v. Hardware Co., 143 N. C., 97, 55 S. E., 417, and Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61, 54 S. E., 847, he will not be in position to resist an adverse verdict.\nWith tbe defendant thus required to handle tbe laboring oar, it was error to nonsuit on tbe plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stagy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Patton, Edwards & Leakherwood and R. D. Sislc for plaintiff.",
      "T. J. Johnston and Moody & Moody for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. STOCKTON v. H. R. LENOIR, Trustee.\n(Filed 15 June, 1931.)\nTrial I) a \u2014 Judgment as of nonsuit in favor of party ui>on whom was the burden of proof held error.\nWhere upon the evidence and admissions of record the defendant may show by parol evidence that plaintiff\u2019s commissions as selling agent were to be confined to payment out of notes given the principal as a part of the purchase price of the lands sold, the burden of proof is upon the defendant, and his motion as of nonsuit on the plaintiff\u2019s evidence should be denied. (See 8. o., 198 N. C., 148.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from MacRae, Special Judge, at November Term, 1930, of MacoN.\nCivil action to recover commissions on sale of real estate, evidenced by two notes, each containing the following stipulation: \u201cTo be paid out of funds from corresponding note of W. D. Almazov and Sophie Albert, when collected.\u201d\n\u2022 At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence judgment as in ease of nonsuit was entered on motion of defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nGeorge B. Patton, Edwards & Leakherwood and R. D. Sislc for plaintiff.\nT. J. Johnston and Moody & Moody for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 162,
  "last_page_order": 163
}