{
  "id": 8601349,
  "name": "J. H. HARRIS v. HELEN SMITH, Administratrix",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1939-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "352",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 352"
    }
  ],
  "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": "18 S. E., 167",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 S. E., 96",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N. C., 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272976
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/130/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S. E., 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252846
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. E., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660123
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S. E., 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655424
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0096-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 1898,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3341757668126914e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27271609271428565
    },
    "sha256": "f0fcac19d27122e9201cf2da249ea4f54c668866c181cbcc8f909c30caa2fbb3",
    "simhash": "1:64b47fbccd07d191",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. HARRIS v. HELEN SMITH, Administratrix."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nViewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, as we are required to do on motion to nonsuit, it appears to be sufficient to carry the case to the jury, albeit the damages shown would seem to be slight or only nominal. See Gulley v. Raynor, 185 N. C., 96, 116 S. E., 171; Perry v. Kime, 169 N. C., 540, 86 S. E., 337; Machine Co. v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C., 284, 53 S. E., 885; Herring v. Armwood, 130 N. C., 177, 41 S. E., 96; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49, 18 S. E., 167.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. T. Martin for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "John Hill Paylor for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. HARRIS v. HELEN SMITH, Administratrix.\n(Filed 18 October, 1939.)\n1. Trial \u00a7\u00a7 22b, 24\u2014\nUpon a motion to nonsuit, tbe evidence must be considered in tbe light most favorable to plaintiff, and tbe case must be submitted to tbe jury if a cause of action is made out, even though tbe damages shown be slight or only nominal.\n2. Agriculture \u00a7 7e\u2014\nEvidence of lease agreement to rent farm lands for a term of one year and the landlord\u2019s breach of the agreement held, sufficient for the jury.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Williams, J., at March Term, 1939, of Pitt. Civil action to recover damages for breach of rental contract.\nThere is evidence on the record permitting tbe inference that in December, 1937, defendant\u2019s intestate, Marcellus Smith, agreed to rent to the plaintiff for the ensuing year \u201cfour acres in tobacco, four acres in cotton and six acres in corn\u201d; that it is the general custom \u201cwhen the landlord furnishes the team, each gets one-half of the crop\u201d; that plaintiff cleaned up the vacant house which he was to occupy on defendant\u2019s place, but was prevented from moving in because there had been \u201csome backing out.\u201d Plaintiff worked elsewhere during 1938, but made very little.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.\nR. T. Martin for plaintiff, appellant.\nJohn Hill Paylor for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0352-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 418
}