{
  "id": 8629192,
  "name": "WILKINS-RICKS COMPANY et al. v. J. D. G. DALRYMPLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilkins-Ricks Co. v. Dalrymple",
  "decision_date": "1934-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "860",
  "last_page": "860",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 860"
    }
  ],
  "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": "81 S. E., 746",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660095
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0519-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20731189347332604
    },
    "sha256": "6d3d06e19505d06dd8eaeccd4f8f71fe557caf79ba544b44ae7d5e3eff04af6a",
    "simhash": "1:407113ba9909cadc",
    "word_count": 197
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILKINS-RICKS COMPANY et al. v. J. D. G. DALRYMPLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Oukiam.\nNo reversible error in the trial of the cause has been made to appear; hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld. Evidence of the account was competent, not only in corroboration of plaintiff\u2019s testimony to which it was limited, but also as tending to show the consideration for the note. Bowman v. Blankenship, 165 N. C., 519, 81 S. E., 746.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Oukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. B. Teague and B. L. Gavin for plaintiff.",
      "11. M. Jackson and K. R. Hoyle for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILKINS-RICKS COMPANY et al. v. J. D. G. DALRYMPLE.\n(Filed 31 October, 1934.)\nAppeal by defendant from Barnhill, J., at July Term, 1934, of Lee.\nCivil action to recover balance due on promissory note, given for past-due account \u2014 goods sold and delivered \u2014 and tried upon the following issues:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant, J. D. G-. Dalrymple, on or about 8 April, 1929, execute and deliver to the 'Wilkins-Ricks Company his promissory sealed note in the sum of $931.80, as alleged? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover thereon? Answer: '$738.80, with interest (from) 1 October, 1929/\u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nD. B. Teague and B. L. Gavin for plaintiff.\n11. M. Jackson and K. R. Hoyle for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0860-01",
  "first_page_order": 928,
  "last_page_order": 928
}