{
  "id": 8620792,
  "name": "COOPER & GRIFFIN, INC., v. OSAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cooper & Griffin, Inc. v. Osage Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "850",
  "last_page": "851",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 850"
    }
  ],
  "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": 150,
    "char_count": 1549,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "sha256": "96ceb321b0076b683e9d2934801781b3b4264285bdc603dd867e460604178545",
    "simhash": "1:5697ebaf938ab2ee",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "COOPER & GRIFFIN, INC., v. OSAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OuRIAm.\nTbe only exception is to tbe judge\u2019s charge. In this we find no error.\nTbe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OuRIAm."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. W. Garland and Blythe & Bonham for plaintiff.",
      "S. J. Durham for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COOPER & GRIFFIN, INC., v. OSAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 November, 1935.)\nAppeal by defendant from Pless, J., at March Term, 1935, of GaSTON.\nThis was an action to recover damages for breach of contract for purchase of two hundred bales of cotton.\nIt was admitted in the pleadings that defendant, a cotton manufacturing company, agreed to purchase from- plaintiff cotton broker the cotton in question at a price, for delivery on 21 and 28 July, and that thereafter it was agreed that \u201cshipments need not be made as required by the terms of the contract, but that if plaintiff would keep cotton moving to tbe defendant\u2019s mill, it would be satisfactory so long as tbe mill was kept supplied.\u201d\nTbe evidence was uncontradicted tbat from 4 August to 9 August, plaintiff shipped and defendant received and paid for 105 bales of cotton, and tbat plaintiff was ready, able, and willing to deliver tbe remaining 95 bales; tbat tbe mill requirements were 103 bales per week, and tbat on 9 August defendant bad on band sufficient cotton for five or six days\u2019 run. On 11 August defendant refused further shipments. Thereupon, plaintiff sold said 95 bales and sustained a loss of $1,071.42.\nThere was no controversy as to tbe amount involved.\nTbe trial judge charged tbe jury if they found tbe facts to be as testified to answer tbe issues in favor of tbe plaintiff.\nP. W. Garland and Blythe & Bonham for plaintiff.\nS. J. Durham for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0850-01",
  "first_page_order": 916,
  "last_page_order": 917
}