{
  "id": 8625383,
  "name": "S. WALLACE HOWELL v. MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1933-02-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "775",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 774"
    }
  ],
  "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": "165 S. E., 693",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1820,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "sha256": "bee5fe5e5f92eaff11ab1e86b2c5b9fe7d18176343e08d1dc2477ad05dfc9cb9",
    "simhash": "1:1bd1498fb1e00358",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. WALLACE HOWELL v. MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cukiam.\nThere was no error in the trial of this action. Marks v. McLeod, 203 N. C., 258, 165 S. E., 693. The judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit, is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thos. W. Alexander and J. L. Delaney for plaintiff.",
      "J. M. Sharmonhouse, H. L. Taylor and Chase Brenizer for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. WALLACE HOWELL v. MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.\n(Filed 22 February, 1933.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from MacRae, Special Judge, at April Special Term, 1932, of MecicleNbubg.\nAffirmed.\nThis action was begun on 12 January, 1932. Tbe purpose of tbe action is to recover of tbe defendant sums of money due to tbe plaintiff on account of shares of stock in defendant association, formerly owned by tbe plaintiff, which bave been matured in accordance with tbe by-laws of tbe defendant.\nIn its answer, tbe defendant alleges that all sums of money due to tbe plaintiff on account of shares of stock formerly owned by him, were paid to tbe plaintiff by tbe defendant promptly as sucb sums of money became due. Tbe defendant further pleads tbe three-year statute of limitations in bar of plaintiff\u2019s recovery in this action.\nTbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff at tbe trial of tbe action showed that all tbe shares of stock in defendant association, which plaintiff bad formerly owned were matured prior to February, 1919, and that this action was begun on 12 January, 1932.\nAt tbe close of tbe evidence, tbe defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit, on tbe ground that tbe action was not begun within three years after tbe cause of action on which plaintiff seeks to recover accrued, and that for that reason tbe action is barred by tbe statute of limitations pleaded in its answer. Tbe motion was allowed, and plaintiff excepted.\nFrom judgment dismissing tbe action as of nonsuit, tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nThos. W. Alexander and J. L. Delaney for plaintiff.\nJ. M. Sharmonhouse, H. L. Taylor and Chase Brenizer for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 840,
  "last_page_order": 841
}