{
  "id": 8630974,
  "name": "OBERLY & NEWELL LITHOGRAPH CORPORATION v. WATSON CLARK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark",
  "decision_date": "1938-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "400",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 400"
    }
  ],
  "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": "155 S. E., 163",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607851
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S. E., 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626123
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0274-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.306377021616523e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4343031196027259
    },
    "sha256": "d92090e5ffabcd3a25047efd5212e173ad842ff5203570f02c1a707007fbad86",
    "simhash": "1:05445688fa0eb6fb",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OBERLY & NEWELL LITHOGRAPH CORPORATION v. WATSON CLARK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe evidence is not all one way. It is conflicting on the issue of defendant\u2019s liability. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury peremptorily in favor of the plaintiff. Brooks v. Ins. Co., 211 N. C., 274, 189 S. E., 787. The rule is, that where the evidence is conflicting, or if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, some favorable to the plaintiffs and others favorable to the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury for final determination. In re West, 212 N. C., 189, 193 S. E., 134; Hobbs v. Mann, 199 N. C., 532, 155 S. E., 163.\nFor the error, as indicated, a new trial must be awarded. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Boucher for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Mach P. Spears and T. J. Edwards for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OBERLY & NEWELL LITHOGRAPH CORPORATION v. WATSON CLARK.\n(Filed 9 November, 1938.)\nTrial \u00a7 27\u2014\nIt is error for the court to direct a verdict in plaintiff\u2019s favor on conflicting evidence, since if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, some favorable to plaintiff and others favorable to defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Olive, Special Judge, at August Special Term, 1938, of Rutheeeoed.\nCivil action to recover for goods sold to and manufactured for \u201cClark Knitting Mills.\u201d\nUnder date of 21 July, 1936, Frank Roberson, acting for and on bebalf of Clark Knitting Mills, gave the plaintiff an order for certain specifically made \u201cbox tops,\u201d \u201cbands,\u201d \u201clabels\u201d and \u201criders,\u201d a part of which was shipped, and the remainder, valued at $460, while manufactured as per instructions, has never been ordered out, but has been tendered for delivery.\nThere is evidence that the defendant owned the Clark Knitting Mills and was operating the mill in 1936.\nThe evidence on behalf of the defendant is to the effect that George and Frank Roberson operated the mill; that the defendant loaned them money, and that he, the defendant, neither owned the business nor operated it.\nFrom a directed verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nPaul Boucher for plaintiff, appellee.\nMach P. Spears and T. J. Edwards for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 468
}