{
  "id": 8633522,
  "name": "LOREN E. PEARSON v. J. W. WESTBROOK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearson v. Westbrook",
  "decision_date": "1934-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "910",
  "last_page": "911",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 910"
    }
  ],
  "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": "205 N. C., 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628984
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274828
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0535-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.913738877884803e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5358547930786698
    },
    "sha256": "ff29b8caa4bef478a69c0a3141fcdd30e1e8ea626b6e4944d66725436c56ba0f",
    "simhash": "1:d4a943e79ed3836e",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LOREN E. PEARSON v. J. W. WESTBROOK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bek CuRIam.\nTbe plaintiff\u2019s production of tbe draft in tbe trial was evidence of its nonpayment by tbe drawer. It contained a waiver of protest which was binding upon all parties \u2014 a waiver of formal protest, of presentment, and dishonor. Shaw Bros. v. McNeill, 95 N. C., 535; Rasberry v. West, 205 N. C., 406.\nWe are of opinion that none of tbe appellant\u2019s exceptions to tbe admission or rejection of evidence can be sustained. Upon examination of tbe whole record we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bek CuRIam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh Brown Campbell and J. Faison Thomson for appellant.",
      "Julian T. Gashill and Dickinson & Bland for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LOREN E. PEARSON v. J. W. WESTBROOK.\n(Filed 2 May, 1934.)\nAppeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at October Civil Term, 1933, of WayNE.\nNo error.\nThe plaintiff was a fire insurance agent. He sold the defendant a policy of insurance in the Great National Insurance Company of Newark, N. J., on certain tobacco barns. The plaintiff settled with the company for the premium and extended credit therefor personally to the defendant. There was a loss under the policy and the defendant made claim on the insurance company, which issued its draft covering the loss. The draft was given to the plaintiff by the company\u2019s claim agent and was delivered to the defendant on 20 November, 1931. In tbe afternoon of tbe same day tbe defendant\u2019s wife paid tbe plaintiff $21.26 tbe amount of tbe premium. A few days afterwards for tbe purpose of identifying tbe defendant and at his request tbe plaintiff endorsed tbe draft in blank under tbe payee\u2019s endorsement and left it with tbe defendant. Tbe plaintiff bad no pecuniary interest in tbe draft. Tbe defendant presented tbe draft endorsed by himself and tbe plaintiff to tbe Branch Banking and Trust Company in Goldsboro, who paid tbe draft upon tbe strength of the plaintiff\u2019s endorsement. Tbe draft was sent by tbe bank of Goldsboro for collection in tbe usual course and was returned unpaid. Tbe plaintiff immediately notified tbe defendant who refused to reimburse tbe plaintiff and tbe plaintiff brought suit against tbe defendant, as prior endorser, to recover tbe sum of $150.00, tbe amount of tbe draft which tbe plaintiff bad paid for tbe benefit of tbe defendant.\nTbe issue, \u201cIn what amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff?\u201d was answered, \u201c$150.00 with interest from 8 December, 1931.\u201d His Honor charged tbe jury as follows: \u201cIf you find tbe facts to be as testified to by all tbe witnesses you will answer this issue $150.00 with interest from 8 December, 1931.\u201d Judgment for plaintiff; exception and appeal by tbe defendant.\nHugh Brown Campbell and J. Faison Thomson for appellant.\nJulian T. Gashill and Dickinson & Bland for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0910-01",
  "first_page_order": 972,
  "last_page_order": 973
}