{
  "id": 8622467,
  "name": "O. G. THOMAS v. THE CHERRYVILLE NATIONAL BANK OF CHERRYVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Cherryville National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1933-01-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "864",
  "last_page": "864",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 864"
    }
  ],
  "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": 101,
    "char_count": 912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "sha256": "7c69f78e20549399a3327756800ef993d67042671ea7476443beea78277eede8",
    "simhash": "1:d74444d0d92abf34",
    "word_count": 144
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. G. THOMAS v. THE CHERRYVILLE NATIONAL BANK OF CHERRYVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nIn addition to being somewhat involved, the plaintiff\u2019s testimony falls short of establishing the contract as alleged, which would entitle him to recover for its breach. The case presents a simple question of the sufficiency of tbe evidence to warrant a recovery.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scarborough & Boyd and Fred. II. Hasty for plaintiff.",
      "A. L. Quiclcel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. G. THOMAS v. THE CHERRYVILLE NATIONAL BANK OF CHERRYVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.\n(Filed 4 January, 1933.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from MacBae, Special Judge, at June Special Term, 1932, of MeckleNbukg.\nCivil action to recover damages, arising ex contractu, and tried upon the following issue :\n\u201cDid tbe plaintiff and defendant enter into an agreement for tbe sale of tbe property described in tbe complaint, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: No (by direction of tbe court).\u201d\nFrom judgment on tbe verdict, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nScarborough & Boyd and Fred. II. Hasty for plaintiff.\nA. L. Quiclcel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0864-01",
  "first_page_order": 932,
  "last_page_order": 932
}