{
  "id": 8627013,
  "name": "PASQUOTANK HOSIERY COMPANY v. HEMPHILL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pasquotank Hosiery Co. v. Hemphill Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "164",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 164"
    }
  ],
  "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": "50 S. E., 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269104
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0209-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2716,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20727308812212603
    },
    "sha256": "30d547f48c75440300e2a99abb4ff31dc9424d3a3ab1275ef4549c8b9b651182",
    "simhash": "1:898f4d12808cb463",
    "word_count": 457
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PASQUOTANK HOSIERY COMPANY v. HEMPHILL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe case was tried upon plaintiff\u2019s evidence, which fails to make out either cause of action as alleged in the complaint. Parker v. Fenwick, 138 N. C., 209, 50 S. E., 627, but it would, seem that tbe issues raised by tbe counterclaim should have been submitted to tbe jury. There is no admission in plaintiff\u2019s testimony of liability for tbe needles.\nMoreover, it is seldom that a verdict can properly be directed in favor of tbe party upon whom rests tbe burden of proof. Reed v. Madison County, ante, 145.\nTbe plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on tbe issues relating to tbe counterclaim.\nPartial new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Hall and M. B. Simpson for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "McMullan & McMullan for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PASQUOTANK HOSIERY COMPANY v. HEMPHILL COMPANY.\n(Filed 2 March, 1938.)\n1. Sales \u00a7 18 \u2014 \u2014*\nTestimony by the president of the purchasing company that the company had paid the purchase price after discovery of every defect complained of, precludes recovery for breach of warranty and for failure to furnish necessary parts when needed.\n2. Sales \u00a7 20 \u2014 When purchaser\u2019s own evidence does not admit liability for purchase price, directed verdict for seller is error.\nA directed verdict for the seller on its counterclaim for the purchase price of needles in the purchaser\u2019s action for breach of warranty, is error when the purchaser\u2019s testimony contains no admission of liability for the purchase price of the needles, the burden of proof on the issue being on the seller.\n3. Trial \u00a7 27\u2014\nOrdinarily, a verdict may not be directed in favor of the party having the burden of proof.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Parker, J., at November Term, 1937, of PASQUOTANK.\nCivil action to recover (1) for alleged breach of contract in the sale or reconditioning of hosiery knitting .machines, and (2) for failure to furnish necessary parts when needed.\nThe defendant interposed a counterclaim (1) for balance due on said machines, and (2) for quantity of needles shipped at the same time.\nThe president of plaintiff company testified on cross-examination: \u201cWe paid them every penny of the purchase price for all sixty machines except $528.00. The reason we held that out was not on account of any defects in the machines, but because we claim that they had wrongfully charged us for needles. . . . We paid for the machines after we discovered every defect about them I have testified to on this stand\u2014 that is to say, we paid all except $528.00 which we held back for needles.\u201d\nThere was a directed verdict against the plaintiff on both of its causes of action and in favor of defendant on its counterclaim. Exception.\nFrom judgment on the verdict, peremptorily instructed, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nJohn H. Hall and M. B. Simpson for plaintiff, appellant.\nMcMullan & McMullan for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0164-01",
  "first_page_order": 228,
  "last_page_order": 229
}