{
  "id": 8627130,
  "name": "MORGAN P. BODIE v. B. C. HORN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bodie v. Horn",
  "decision_date": "1937-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "397",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 397"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 S. E., 948",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269645
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0231-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20727540485951113
    },
    "sha256": "8d4b92cb05a75bde962fbfd2a65cec1651800a8fa62814a7270b0eba335c8799",
    "simhash": "1:f0add677ca11b9ff",
    "word_count": 217
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MORGAN P. BODIE v. B. C. HORN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oubiam.\nThe basis of the judgment is that the transactions alleged in the complaint are denominated \u201cfutures,\u201d no actual delivery of the articles sold being intended or contemplated, and therefore declared illegal by C. S., 2144. Orvis Bros. & Co. v. Holt-Morgan Mills, 173 N. C., 231, 91 S. E., 948. It is also observed that the complaint contains no allegation of a promise to pay on the part of the defendant, which, perhaps, the plaintiff assumed the law would imply. However, in all events, the judgment sustaining the demurrer would seem to be correct.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. T. J ones, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "T. J. Moss for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MORGAN P. BODIE v. B. C. HORN.\n(Filed 17 March, 1937.)\nContracts \u00a7 7d\u2014\nA contract for \u201ccotton futures\u201d in which no actual delivery is intended or contemplated is void and no action may be maintained thereon.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at September Term, 1936, of RuTHEREOED.\nCivil action to recover balance alleged to be due on certain \u201ccotton contracts\u201d purchased by plaintiff from defendant \u201con call\u201d and \u201cclosed out\u201d when plaintiff failed to \u201cput up sufficient margin to protect said contracts.\u201d\nDemurrer interposed on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer sustained. Plaintiff appeals.\nB. T. J ones, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nT. J. Moss for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 463
}