{
  "id": 8625656,
  "name": "N. W. WARREN v. LITTLETON ORANGE CRUSH BOTTLING COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Littleton Orange Crush Bottling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1934-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "314",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 313"
    }
  ],
  "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": "206 N. C., 856",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8633254
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0856-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2569,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5425042103386404e-07,
      "percentile": 0.813570405069948
    },
    "sha256": "1dd4bc7d6ffacc242c9a8347536ab641c52713a8f952feb715b4d2357e56f846",
    "simhash": "1:a98f9346db0b43e8",
    "word_count": 442
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. W. WARREN v. LITTLETON ORANGE CRUSH BOTTLING COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CukiaM.\nIn Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N. C., 856, it was said: \u201cTbe only assignment of error in tbe case at bar is tbe \u2018signing of tbe judgment, . . . having duly excepted to tbe signing of said judgment.\u2019 If said assignment merely refers to tbe act of signing tbe judgment, it presents no question of law for review. But, upon tbe other band, if it be treated cas an exception to tbe judgment, it presents tbe single question whether tbe facts found or admitted are sufficient to support tbe judgment.\u2019 \u201d\nSo, in tbe present case there is no exception to tbe finding of fact that tbe claim was not usurious, and consequently tbe judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CukiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julian B. Allsbrooh and Cromwell Daniel for plaintiff.",
      "Geo. C. Green for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. W. WARREN v. LITTLETON ORANGE CRUSH BOTTLING COMPANY, INC.\n(Filed 31 October, 1934.)\nAppeal and Error P a\u2014\nWhere defendant\u2019s sole exception is to the judgment, and the judgment is supported by the findings of fact to which no exception is taken, the judgment must be affirmed on appeal.\nCivil actioN, before Moore, Special J., at Chambers, 15 February, 1934. From Halifax.\nThis action was instituted to recover the sum of $720.00, which the plaintiff alleges was due the plaintiff by virtue of the terms of a written contract, dated 31 October, 1931. The defend\u00e1nt denied the indebtedness and alleged that the claim of plaintiff constituted usury.\nAll parties agreed that the trial judge should find the facts. Accord\u2019 ingly, it was found that the said sum of $720.00 demanded by plaintiff represented interest on a $12,000 note due the plaintiff by O. E. Carter, W. A. Carter, and Mrs.Yerbena Carter, and that said note was part of the original purchase price of certain property purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that the $720.00 \u201cagreed to be paid by the defendant and involved in this suit represented the interest due on the $12,000 balance of the purchase price of said corporate property,\u201d etc. It was further agreed \u201cthat the court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff if he shall find from the foregoing facts that the charge of $720.00 is not .an usurious one,\u201d etc. In the judgment entered, the court declared that '\u201cthe contract executed by defendant to plaintiff for the sum of $720.00 is not an usurious one, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover of \u2022defendant the sum of $720.00,\u201d etc.\nFrom the foregoing judgment the defendant appealed. The only exception is as follows: \u201cTo the action of the court in signing the judgment as set out in the record, and to the judgment.\u201d\nJulian B. Allsbrooh and Cromwell Daniel for plaintiff.\nGeo. C. Green for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}