{
  "id": 8621482,
  "name": "BUXTON WHITE SEED COMPANY v. ROBERT T. COCHRAN AND COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Buxton White Seed Co. v. Robert T. Cochran & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1932-09-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "844",
  "last_page": "845",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 844"
    }
  ],
  "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": "202 N. C., 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628633
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0811-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 1993,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.422749621539707e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3968696630575759
    },
    "sha256": "7a831a09e9bbf9f3acd745bc6901f63fa918dee4a7206558ed8d97b7230269fc",
    "simhash": "1:6997c0f9552e8cc9",
    "word_count": 330
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BUXTON WHITE SEED COMPANY v. ROBERT T. COCHRAN AND COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe record contains eleven assignments of error of which the second and sixth may be taken as illustrative:\nDefendant assigns error:\n\u201c2. For that the court admitted the evidence over defendant\u2019s objection as preserved in exceptions Nos. 2 and 3 (R. pp. 3 and 6).\u201d\n\u201c6. For that the court excluded the competent and material evidence important to the defendant as specifically set out in each exception, as preserved by defendant\u2019s exceptions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 (E. pp. 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49 and 50).\u201d\nThese assignments of error are defective in that they give no indication of relevancy to the controversy; nor do they show any signs of pertinency to the questions sought to be presented. Greene v. Dishman, 202 N. C., 811; Baker v. Clayton, 202 N. C., 741. But notwithstanding their deficiency, a careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to the decisions on the subject.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ehringhaus & Hall for plaintiff.",
      "J. E. LeRoy, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BUXTON WHITE SEED COMPANY v. ROBERT T. COCHRAN AND COMPANY.\n(Filed 14 September, 1932.)\nAppeal and Error P c \u2014 Assignments of error in this case held defective.\nAssignments of error which do not indicate their relevancy to the controversy or show their pertinency to the questions sought to be presented are defective.\nAppeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at February Term, 1932, of PASQUOTANK.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract. Denial of liability interposed and counterclaim set up by defendant.\nIt appearing that an accounting was necessary, on motion of defendant, and over objection of plaintiff, a reference was ordered under the statute.\nBoth sides filed exceptions to the report of the referee, both tendered issues, and the plaintiff demanded a jury trial.\nA jury trial was ordered, and upon the hearing, the plaintiff prevailed.\n' From the judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nEhringhaus & Hall for plaintiff.\nJ. E. LeRoy, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0844-01",
  "first_page_order": 912,
  "last_page_order": 913
}