{
  "id": 8629110,
  "name": "ERCEL JACKSON et al. v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1937-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "733",
  "last_page": "734",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 733"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 S. E., 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654314
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S. E., 112",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 844",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0844-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S. E., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 836",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221393
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0836-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 1936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20730957673594097
    },
    "sha256": "69792ccd84f6dd7a878188ebf3b8ca833f632d5807586ebe48cf7305e76a6f57",
    "simhash": "1:c2e8140ae641868f",
    "word_count": 328
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ERCEL JACKSON et al. v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OueiaM.\nOne member of tbe Court, Schenck, J., being absent, and tbe remaining four being equally divided in opinion as to whether tbe matters of law or legal inference, debated on argument and brief, are presented by tbe record, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court, accordant with the usual practice in such, cases, is affirmed and stands as tbe decision in this ease, without becoming a precedent. S. v. Swan, 209 N. C., 836, 183 S. E., 285; Sessoms v. R. R., 208 N. C., 844, 182 S. E., 112.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sidney A. Ward and H. S. Ward for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "W. L. Whitley and Z. V. Norman for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ERCEL JACKSON et al. v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 24 February, 1937.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 38\u2014\nWhere the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed, in accordance with the usual practice.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Barnhill, J., at October Term, 1936, of WASHINGTON.\nCivil action for accounting.\nPlaintiffs allege tbat in 1933 they secured a loan of $9,250 from tbe Home Owners Loan Corporation witb which to pay off an indebtedness due tbe defendant, said indebtedness being secured by deed of trust on their residences; tbat in taking tbe bonds of tbe HOLC tbe defendant credited plaintiffs witb only 85 per cent of their face value; wherefore, they sue for tbe remaining 15 per cent, amounting to $1,387.50, witb interest and costs.\nTbe defendant denies liability, pleads express agreement and ratification on tbe part of plaintiffs, prior to act of Congress inhibiting such agreements, and contends tbat plaintiffs may not accept tbe benefits of said agreement and at tbe same time repudiate its burdens; tbat if they would rescind they must do so in tolo. Starkweather v. Gravely, 187 N. C., 526, 122 S. E., 297.\nFrom verdict and judgment exculpating defendant from liability, the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.\nSidney A. Ward and H. S. Ward for plaintiffs, appellants.\nW. L. Whitley and Z. V. Norman for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0733-01",
  "first_page_order": 799,
  "last_page_order": 800
}