{
  "id": 8625958,
  "name": "G. E. ASHLEY v. A. G. MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ashley v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1933-05-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "797",
  "last_page": "797",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 797"
    }
  ],
  "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": 119,
    "char_count": 1273,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "0f468c655ba36ae93fa18549d9da16c21419357c88bc217c2b3a97a0d4e4ae50",
    "simhash": "1:da2686e63803fcaf",
    "word_count": 215
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. E. ASHLEY v. A. G. MILLER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiajm.\nThe plaintiff brought suit to recover $1,350 with interest, the aggregate amount of eight notes executed by the defendant to the plaintiff in part payment of a stock of goods. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes and pleaded fraudulent representation as to the quality and quantity of the goods as a defense to the action.\nThe execution and delivery of the notes made a prima facie case for the plaintiff and barred dismissal of the suit; and the defendant's testimony fails to show any actionable fraud on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant took charge of the goods, employed a \u201cspecialty man\u201d to assist in marking and selling- them, had opportunity to discover any defects, had been in the business about fifteen years, conducted a ten-day sale, and after the sale was concluded settled with the plaintiff and executed the notes. We find no reversible error in the court\u2019s instructions to the jury, in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in permitting the complaint to be verified.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiajm."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burke & Burke and T. E. Bingham for plaintiff.",
      "Newland & Townsend and Trivette & Holshouser for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. E. ASHLEY v. A. G. MILLER.\n(Filed 10 May, 1933.)\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, J., at December Term, 1932, of Watauga.\nNo error.\nBurke & Burke and T. E. Bingham for plaintiff.\nNewland & Townsend and Trivette & Holshouser for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0797-01",
  "first_page_order": 863,
  "last_page_order": 863
}