{
  "id": 8628846,
  "name": "SECURITY FINANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, v. M. E. ROBINSON and T. R. ROBINSON, Trading as M. E. ROBINSON AND BROTHER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Security Finance Co. v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1931-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "837",
  "last_page": "837",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 837"
    }
  ],
  "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": 115,
    "char_count": 1170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "sha256": "4ca259bdfc861851f7524c739997910ac8f6ce19798cd76cd5f97697abca60f9",
    "simhash": "1:0f309cd3ac3ae8cc",
    "word_count": 192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SECURITY FINANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, v. M. E. ROBINSON and T. R. ROBINSON, Trading as M. E. ROBINSON AND BROTHER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe trial judge instructed tbe jury correctly upon all phases of tbe law involved in tbe controversy. Indeed there is no exception to tbe charge as given. Consequently, tbe trial of tbe cause Avas narrowed to tbe determination of issues of fact, and hence tbe Arerdict determines tbe merits of tbe action.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "0. N. Lovelace for plaintiff.",
      "Dickinson & Freeman and W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SECURITY FINANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, v. M. E. ROBINSON and T. R. ROBINSON, Trading as M. E. ROBINSON AND BROTHER.\n(Filed 10 November, 1931.)\nCivil action, before Sinclair, J., at May-June Term, 1931, of Wayne.\nTbe plaintiff instituted an action against tbe defendants upon certain promissory notes given for tbe purchase price of radios and radio equipment. Tbe notes were payable to tbe Brenard Manufacturing Company, and it was alleged that tbey were duly endorsed to tbe plaintiff and that tbe plaintiff was a bolder thereof in due course. Tbe defendant offered evidence to tbe effect that tbe property was worthless. Issues were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of tbe defendant.\nFrom judgment upon tbe verdict tbe plaintiff appealed.\n0. N. Lovelace for plaintiff.\nDickinson & Freeman and W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0837-01",
  "first_page_order": 911,
  "last_page_order": 911
}