{
  "id": 8625344,
  "name": "CLEVELAND MILL AND POWER COMPANY v. A. A. RICHARDS, F. M. NEWTON and C. A. BRITTAIN et al., a Partnership, Trading Under the Firm Name and Style of FARMERS GIN COMPANY, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cleveland Mill & Power Co. v. Richards",
  "decision_date": "1933-02-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "772",
  "last_page": "773",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 772"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S. E., 34",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630079
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2426,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20724412890481259
    },
    "sha256": "701fea840bcaf08eb609f697340da2af18e188b8d6aa2189d84f7830e4e0a32a",
    "simhash": "1:91361d46335faa6d",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLEVELAND MILL AND POWER COMPANY v. A. A. RICHARDS, F. M. NEWTON and C. A. BRITTAIN et al., a Partnership, Trading Under the Firm Name and Style of FARMERS GIN COMPANY, Defendants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nTbe defendants contended that tbe controversy should have been solved by an issue of indebtedness, and that tbe submission of the first issue deprived them of certain elements of defense.\nIssues arise upon tbe pleadings and \u201cit has been held by this Court that where issues submitted by tbe court to tbe jury are sufficient in form and substance to present all phases of tbe controversy between tbe parties, there is no ground for exception to tbe same. ... A new trial will not ordinarily be granted by this Court where it appears that tbe issues submitted to tbe jury presented for their determination tbe essential questions in controversy, although other questions not determinative of liability are also included in tbe issues.\u201d Bank v. Bank, 197 N. C., 526, 150 S. E., 34.\nAn examination of tbe record and briefs of counsel discloses conflicting evidence upon disputed issues of fact. A verdict for either party would have been supported by tbe evidence introduced at tbe trial. No error of law in tbe admission of testimony or tbe instructions of tbe trial judge is apparent as we interpret tbe record, bence tbe verdict and judgment tbereon are determinative.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ryburn & Hoey for plaintiff.",
      "B. T. Falls for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLEVELAND MILL AND POWER COMPANY v. A. A. RICHARDS, F. M. NEWTON and C. A. BRITTAIN et al., a Partnership, Trading Under the Firm Name and Style of FARMERS GIN COMPANY, Defendants.\n(Filed 22 February, 1933.)\nTrial F a\u2014\nWhere the issues submitted are sufficient in form and substance to present all phases of the controversy to the jury an exception thereto will not be sustained.\nCivil action, before McElroy, J., at Spring Term, 1932, of Cleveland.\nTbe plaintiff instituted suit against tbe defendants to recover tbe sum of $1,442.74, paid through error and mistake, in settlement for sixteen bales of cotton. Tbe defendant denied that any error bad occurred in tbe payment for sixteen bales of cotton. Both parties offered evidence tending to support their respective theories.\nTbe following issues were submitted to tbe jury:\n(1) \u201cDid tbe defendants on 15 October, 1929, deliver to tbe plaintiff tbe sixteen bales of cotton which are in controversy in this action ?\u201d\n(2) What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of defendants ?\u201d\nTbe jury answered tbe first issue \u201cNo,\u201d and tbe second issue \u201c$1,442.74.\u201d\nFrom judgment upon tbe verdict tbe defendants appealed.\nRyburn & Hoey for plaintiff.\nB. T. Falls for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0772-01",
  "first_page_order": 838,
  "last_page_order": 839
}