{
  "id": 8597049,
  "name": "BERRY-FORTUNE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. F. P. BACON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berry-Fortune Construction Co. v. Bacon",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 S. E., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S. E., 720",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2649,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071072483376444
    },
    "sha256": "35c3445524b616fc23de60a0918ae09327950856d31b91574a955adf267daa80",
    "simhash": "1:aaa3f3a03c170edb",
    "word_count": 444
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BERRY-FORTUNE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. F. P. BACON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff seeks to enforce a derivative right, but its evidence falls short of proving the basic contract as alleged between defendant and the Tryon Development Company. Gorrell v. Water Co., 124 N. C., 328, 32 S. E., 720; 6 R. C. L., 886. For this reason, the judgment of nonsuit is correct.\nBut going further, it would seem that the defendant\u2019s plea of res judicata is also well founded. Distributing Co. v. Carraway, 196 N. C., 58, 144 S. E., 535.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Self, Bagby, Aiken & Patrick for plaintiff.",
      "Massenburg & McGown, J. Hertz Brown and Shipman & Arledge for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BERRY-FORTUNE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. F. P. BACON.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nContracts F c \u2014 Where plaintiff fails to establish contract sued on a non-suit is proper.\nWhere the plaintiff seeks to recover on a contract alleged to have been executed between a third party and the defendant for the plaintiff\u2019s benefit, but the evidence fails to establish the alleged contract, a motion as of nonsuit is properly granted, and in this case it would seem that the defendant\u2019s plea of res judicata on the ground that the matter had been determined in an action brought in another state is also well founded.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at September-October Term, 1931, of Pole.\nCivil action to recover on contract between defendant and the Tryon Development Company, alleged to bave been made for the benefit of the plaintiff.\nOn 21 April, 1926, the plaintiff entered into a contract with, the Tryon Development Company to rebuild a large dam at Lake Lanier. It is alleged that the defendant agreed with the Tryon Development Company to furnish it \u201can amount sufficient to construct the dam at Lake Lanier.\u201d The balance due the plaintiff on its contract at the time of the completion of the work was $26,096.09. A mechanic\u2019s lien was filed by plaintiff and $17,311.19 realized therefrom, leaving a balance as of 15 August, 1927, of $8,784.90 due and unpaid.\nIn October, 1927, tbe plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant in Spartanburg County, S. C., to recover this unpaid balance, alleging an original promise on the part of the defendant to pay the same. This action terminated in favor of the defendant.\nThe plaintiff now brings the present suit alleging that the contract between defendant and the Tryon Development Company to furnish the latter \u201can amount sufficient to construct the dam at Lake Lanier\u201d was made for its benefit, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover thereon.\nThe defendant pleads res judicata and the statute of frauds.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, it appeals, assigning errors.\nSelf, Bagby, Aiken & Patrick for plaintiff.\nMassenburg & McGown, J. Hertz Brown and Shipman & Arledge for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 70
}