{
  "id": 8626135,
  "name": "M. E. TEETER v. W. A. NEWELL and J. B. LINKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Teeter v. Newell",
  "decision_date": "1933-06-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "804",
  "last_page": "804",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 804"
    }
  ],
  "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": 95,
    "char_count": 984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "ab3dc460d38b8ece0d2be70544bb4e46f33206003128d233da74da020723ec94",
    "simhash": "1:54564e9158e2c13f",
    "word_count": 170
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. E. TEETER v. W. A. NEWELL and J. B. LINKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe evidence discloses a controverted issue of fact, and the verdict is determinative of the controversy. No exception presented in the record warrants the overthrow of the judgment.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. S. Bogle for plaintiff.",
      "S. S. Williams for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. E. TEETER v. W. A. NEWELL and J. B. LINKER.\n(Filed 28 June, 1933.)\nCivil action, before Finley, J., at August Term, 1932, of Cabarrus.\nPlaintiff instituted this action against the defendant Newell to recover upon certain notes executed by J. B. Linker. He alleged that Newell was a partner with Linker in the purchase of certain land, and that the notes were given in payment of the purchase price. The defendant Newell denied that he was a partner and offered testimony to the effect that he had loaned Linker money to buy land, but that he was not interested in any of the purchases. The issue of indebtedness was answered by the jury in favor of defendant, and from judgment upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed.\nW. S. Bogle for plaintiff.\nS. S. Williams for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0804-02",
  "first_page_order": 870,
  "last_page_order": 870
}