{
  "id": 8629328,
  "name": "BULLUCK AUTO SALES COMPANY v. WILLIAM MEYER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bulluck Auto Sales Co. v. Meyer",
  "decision_date": "1934-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "198",
  "last_page": "199",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 198"
    }
  ],
  "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": "125 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654395
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 227",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600912
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1739,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6899558622915853
    },
    "sha256": "367b57b1915eee04c48cad3e1e1032d0a3be5016b99ec4eb41ca02addf1cd07d",
    "simhash": "1:2ec0a29e9890cbde",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BULLUCK AUTO SALES COMPANY v. WILLIAM MEYER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of Barco v. Forbes, 194 N. C., 204, 139 S. E., 227, and Bank v. Howard, 188 N. C., 543, 125 S. E., 126.\nIn the latter case, the following- was quoted from 8 C. J., 444, with approval: \u201cOne who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the time of a partial failure of consideration for the original note, or of false representations by the payee, waives such defense and cannot set it up to defeat or reduce the recovery on the renewal note.\u201d\nNo error having been made to appear of which defendant can complain, the judgment will not be disturbed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thorp & Thorp for plaintiff.",
      "T. T. Thorne and J. L. Simmons for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BULLUCK AUTO SALES COMPANY v. WILLIAM MEYER.\n(Filed 28 February, 1934.)\nSales H e\u2014\nThe execution of renewal notes for a note given for the inirchase price of merchandise, with knowledge at the time of such renewals of breach of warranty, waives the maker\u2019s right to set up a counterclaim for breach of warranty in an action on the last renewal note.\nAppeal by defendant from Barnhill, Jat October Term, 1933, of Nash.\nCivil action to recover balance due on renewal note given for purchase of automobile, and to foreclose retained-title contract to said automobile.\nDefense interposed, by way of counterclaim, to the amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim, and more, for alleged breach of warranty in the sale of said car.\nIt appearing from defendant\u2019s own testimony that the note held by plaintiff was \u201crenewed, curtailed and renewed again\u201d after the discovery of the alleged breach of warranty, the court nonsuited the counterclaim on the ground of estoppel, and granted judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nThorp & Thorp for plaintiff.\nT. T. Thorne and J. L. Simmons for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0198-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 261
}