{
  "id": 8626413,
  "name": "R. F. WOLFE, JR., by His Next Friend, R. F. WOLFE, SR., v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY and E. L. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wolfe ex rel. Wolfe v. Montgomery Ward & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1937-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "295",
  "last_page": "296",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 295"
    }
  ],
  "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": "186 N. C., 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N. C., 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658464
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/135/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609251
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0543-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3236,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.829227149732826e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4978933134711715
    },
    "sha256": "46df8fb4bf554eab5563223c9020de8e136a7776f1072c6b3e8257eb21a7a3e5",
    "simhash": "1:26cb2854c21f2595",
    "word_count": 555
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. F. WOLFE, JR., by His Next Friend, R. F. WOLFE, SR., v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY and E. L. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe jury, evidently taking the Biblical view that \u201ca good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,\u201d have decided that the plaintiff was slandered but that he was entitled to recover no damages.\nThe appellant\u2019s only complaint is that upon an affirmative finding on the first issue nominal damages, at least, should have been awarded and that he should have been adjudged entitled to recover nominal costs.\nThere is no other exception. The trial was free from error.\nIt is provided by statute (C. S,., 1241 [4]), that in actions for slander, \u201cif the plaintiff recovers less than fifty dollars damages, he shall recover no more costs than damages.\u201d\nThe trial judge inadvertently omitted to instruct the jury that, if they answered the first issue in the affirmative, the plaintiff was entitled, at least, to nominal damages. What is meant by nominal damages is a small, trivial sum awarded in recognition of a technical injury which has caused no substantial damage. Davis v. Wallace, 190 N. C., 543; Hutton v. Cook, 173 N. C., 496; Chaffin v. Mfg. Co., 135 N. C., 95.\nHowever, since the jury have established the fact that the plaintiff suffered no damage, the judgment could only have awarded nominal costs. Hence, the form of the judgment has occasioned no injury to the plaintiff of which he can justly complain. No substantial rights are involved, and the trifling item of cost is too small to justify a new trial or further consume the time of the Court. Cohoon v. Cooper, 186 N. C., 26.\nThe judgment should be modified to adjudge nominal costs, and be in other respects affirmed.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. M. Marshburn for plaintiff.",
      "Thorp & Thorp for Montgomery Ward & Company.",
      "S. L. Arrington for E. L. Jones."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. F. WOLFE, JR., by His Next Friend, R. F. WOLFE, SR., v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY and E. L. JONES.\n(Filed 24 February, 1937.)\nLibel and Slander \u00a7 13: Appeal and Error \u00a7 39 \u2014 Verdict that plaintiff was slandered but suffered no substantial damage entitles plaintiff to costs.\nWhere the jury finds that plaintiff: was slandered but does not award damages, the failure of the court to instruct the jury that an affirmative answer to the issue entitles plaintiff to nominal damages at least does not entitle plaintiff to a new trial, but the judgment must be modified to adjudge nominal costs, O. S., 1241 (4), and affirmed, since the item of costs is too small to justify a new trial.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Spears, J., at October Term, 1936, of Nash.\nModified and affirmed.\nAction for damages for slander and assault.\nThe verdict of the jury upon issues submitted was as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant E. L. Jones speak of and concerning the plaintiff the words in substance alleged in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If the defendant E. L. Jones used said language as alleged in the complaint, was he, at the time, acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of his duty? Answer: \u00a3Yes.\u2019\n\u201c3. Did the defendants wrongfully assault the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.\u2019\n\u201c4. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants ? Answer : None.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict that plaintiff recover nothing of defendants, plaintiff appealed.\nO. M. Marshburn for plaintiff.\nThorp & Thorp for Montgomery Ward & Company.\nS. L. Arrington for E. L. Jones."
  },
  "file_name": "0295-01",
  "first_page_order": 361,
  "last_page_order": 362
}