{
  "id": 8619321,
  "name": "W. E. FERGUSON v. J. M. BALLENGER and WADE BALLENGER, Trading as BALLENGER BROTHERS, and BALLENGER BROTHERS COAL COMPANY, a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ferguson v. Ballenger",
  "decision_date": "1935-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "829",
  "last_page": "830",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 829"
    }
  ],
  "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": 219,
    "char_count": 3410,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "sha256": "d065f8f4f524f47681d33c5dbb07df746c20e0126f1a6637b2fd2485f733b9d5",
    "simhash": "1:1ec73c28386a7e58",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. E. FERGUSON v. J. M. BALLENGER and WADE BALLENGER, Trading as BALLENGER BROTHERS, and BALLENGER BROTHERS COAL COMPANY, a Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CubiaM.\nWe see no novel or new proposition of law involved in this appeal. The evidence was to the effect that Ballenger Brothers were tenants of plaintiff. They held over after the year expired and became tenants from year to year. They remained in possession and became liable for the year\u2019s rent. The principle, well settled under the facts and circumstances of this case, is that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord\u2019s title. The defendants Ballenger Brothers, in the execution of the lease, did not allege fraud or mistake and parol evidence was incompetent to contradict, add to, modify, or explain the written instrument.\nThe evidence fully sustains the verdict on the second issue that defendants Ballenger Brothers Coal Company, a corporation, were liable ex maleficio. The matters involved in the controversy were mainly facts for the jury\u2019s determination. They have found for the plaintiff. Upon an examination of the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendants, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. In the judgment of the court below, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cr. T. Carswell and Joe W. Enin for plaintiff.",
      "D. E. Henderson for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. E. FERGUSON v. J. M. BALLENGER and WADE BALLENGER, Trading as BALLENGER BROTHERS, and BALLENGER BROTHERS COAL COMPANY, a Corporation.\n(Filed 1 May, 1935.)\nAppeal by defendants from Sink, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1934, of MeoKLENBueg.\nNo error.\nThis is an action brought by plaintiff: (1) To recover of defendants J. M. Ballenger and Wade Ballenger, trading as Ballenger Brothers, tbe sum of $480.00, and interest from 24 June, 1929, due by lease contract. (2) That Ballenger Brothers Coal Company, a corporation, was organized fraudulently to defeat plaintiff\u2019s claim, and took over tbe assets of Ballenger Brothers, and \u201cthat tbe plaintiff be entitled to follow tbe said property into tbe corporation and bave judgment against tbe corporation for tbe amount of bis claim.\u201d Tbe defendants denied tbe material allegations of tbe plaintiff and set up a different contract from that alleged by plaintiff.\nTbe issues submitted to tbe jury and their answers thereto were as follows: \u201c(1) Is tbe paper-writing dated 24 June, 1927, designated as plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit No. 1, between Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation o\u00a3 Virginia, designated therein as lessor, and W. E. Ferguson, individually, J. M. Ballenger and Wade Ballenger, partners, doing business as Ballenger Brothers, in fact a lease to W. E. Ferguson, individually, and J. M. Ballenger and Wade Ballenger, doing business as Ballenger Brothers, as sub-lessees of W. E. Ferguson, individually, as alleged in the complaint? A. 'Yes.\u2019 (2) Did Ballenger Brothers, Incorporated, assume the assets and liabilities of Ballenger Brothers, a partnership, without having retained in the firm of Ballenger Brothers, a partnership, sufficient assets to pay its debts, as alleged in the complaint? A. 'Yes.\u2019 (3) What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of Ballenger Brothers, a partnership? A. '$480.00, with interest from 24 June, 1929.\u2019 (4) What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of Ballenger Brothers, Incorporated? A. '$480.00, with interest from 24 June, 1929.\u2019\u201d\nJudgment was rendered for plaintiff by the court below on the verdict. The defendants made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nCr. T. Carswell and Joe W. Enin for plaintiff.\nD. E. Henderson for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0829-01",
  "first_page_order": 895,
  "last_page_order": 896
}