{
  "id": 8629872,
  "name": "TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY v. W. D. CROSS and DAISY E. CROSS, Trading as BLADEN ICE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tide Water Power Co. v. Cross",
  "decision_date": "1936-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "844",
  "last_page": "845",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 844"
    }
  ],
  "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": "204 N. C., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611812
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628336
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596052
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221492
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0483-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20732521471329024
    },
    "sha256": "dcda37c981f55c4d5ffc76753d5ea19eb3954238b1d126f697aaee8415525838",
    "simhash": "1:b4deb533f23fc0fc",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY v. W. D. CROSS and DAISY E. CROSS, Trading as BLADEN ICE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe jury having answered the determinative issues against the defendants, and there being competent evidence to support the verdict, the defendants\u2019 claim for damages as set-off and counterclaim against the note sued on cannot avail.\nAppellants excepted to the ruling of the court on the evidence in sustaining objections to numerous questions relating to the third and sixth issues, but in some instances the record does not show what the witnesses would have answered in reply, and hence these assignments of error cannot be considered (Winborne v. Lloyd, 209 N. C., 483; Newbern v. Hinton, 190 N. C., 108); in other instances similar testimony was admitted without objection (Light Co. v. Rogers, 207 N. C., 751; Colvard v. Light Co., 204 N. C., 97).\nWe find no reversible error in the rulings of the court on the testimony. The case resolved itself into a controversy as to the facts, and the jury\u2019s verdict thereon will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis J. Poisson and H. H. Clark for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Oliver Carter and Butler & Butler for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY v. W. D. CROSS and DAISY E. CROSS, Trading as BLADEN ICE COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 December, 1936.)\nAppeal by defendants from Williams, J., at June Special Term, 1936, of BladeN.\nNo error.\nAction for balance due on note for $1,551, executed 22 December, 1931, by defendants for electric service theretofore furnished by plaintiff.\nDefendants in their answer admitted the execution of the note, but, as set-off and counterclaim, alleged negligent operation of plaintiff\u2019s power lines, causing damage to defendants\u2019 motors and to defendants\u2019 business prior to 22 December, 1931, and alleged negligent operation of said power lines in 1932 and 1933, causing further damage.\nThe jury answered the issues submitted to them as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the defendants execute and deliver to the plaintiff the note set forth in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, what amount is due to the plaintiff by the defendants thereon? Answer: \u2018$1,557, less payment 13 August, 1932, of $250.00, and payment of $250.00 on 21 September, 1932.\u2019\n\u201c3. Were all matters and claims in controversy between plaintiff and defendants, on 22 December, 1931, settled and compromised by execution of the note described in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c4. Was the defendants\u2019 property injured by the negligence of the plaintiff prior to 22 December, 1931, as alleged in defendants\u2019 further answer and counterclaim ? Answer: .\n\u201c6. Was defendants\u2019 business injured by the negligence of plaintiff as a result of interruption of electric power in 1932 and 1933 ? Answer: \u2018No.\u2019\n\u201c7. What damages, if any, are defendants entitled to recover for such injury in 1932 and 1933? Answer: \u2018None.\u2019\n\u201c8. Did the defendants waive all claims which they had against plaintiff by payments to plaintiff on the said note in 1932? Answer: \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict defendants appealed.\nLouis J. Poisson and H. H. Clark for plaintiff, appellee.\nOliver Carter and Butler & Butler for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0844-01",
  "first_page_order": 910,
  "last_page_order": 911
}