{
  "id": 8621786,
  "name": "F. A. HAYES v. CAROLINA AUTO SUPPLY HOUSE, Incorporated",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hayes v. Carolina Auto Supply House, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1932-11-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "850",
  "last_page": "850",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 850"
    }
  ],
  "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": 124,
    "char_count": 1129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "sha256": "dde5195d237433d9fe12b8cc12cf51eccfe24ace38b67c0a0846e4156cfd8c58",
    "simhash": "1:e6cbf453b702452a",
    "word_count": 182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. A. HAYES v. CAROLINA AUTO SUPPLY HOUSE, Incorporated."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn controverted issues of fact, involving different understanding and opposite contentions of the parties, the jury has found in favor of the plaintiff. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to the principles of law applicable and the authoritative decisions on the questions raised by the defendant\u2019s 207 exceptions and assignments of error. It is not to be expected that we should discuss the assignments seriatim, for, to do so, would require an opinion of intolerable length. S. v. Lea, ante, 13.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. F. Aycoch and Kenneth G. Boyall for plaintiff.",
      "E. McA. Currie and Langston, Allen & Taylor for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. A. HAYES v. CAROLINA AUTO SUPPLY HOUSE, Incorporated.\n(Filed 2 November, 1932.)\nAppeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at March Term, 1932, of WayNE.\nCivil action to recover for alleged breach of exclusive right, granted the plaintiff by the defendant, to distribute Pennzoil products in certain counties of North Carolina.\nFrom a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nB. F. Aycoch and Kenneth G. Boyall for plaintiff.\nE. McA. Currie and Langston, Allen & Taylor for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0850-01",
  "first_page_order": 918,
  "last_page_order": 918
}