{
  "id": 8622566,
  "name": "LOUISE WILSON, by Her Next Friend, NELL DALTON, v. E. H. POSEY, Trading and Doing Business as PARKWAY CLEANERS AND LAUNDRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson ex rel. Dalton v. Posey",
  "decision_date": "1941-03-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "261",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 N.C. 261"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2227,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "sha256": "d1a1c43fb61ad5b980e9325063eb5d6f5a59cead627fe4642e230dffdc54c845",
    "simhash": "1:dc0ac5b2321a8a77",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:18.105136+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LOUISE WILSON, by Her Next Friend, NELL DALTON, v. E. H. POSEY, Trading and Doing Business as PARKWAY CLEANERS AND LAUNDRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiff alleges a bailment for hire, and there is no sufficient allegation of special damage. The failure of the judge of the county court to instruct the jury on the measure of damages as prayed by the defendant was prejudicial error and the court below properly so held.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Don G. Toung for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Jones, Ward & Jones for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LOUISE WILSON, by Her Next Friend, NELL DALTON, v. E. H. POSEY, Trading and Doing Business as PARKWAY CLEANERS AND LAUNDRY.\n(Filed 5 March, 1941.)\nBailment \u00a7 6\u2014\nWhere plaintiff alleges a bailment for hire on the part of defendant dry cleaning company in accepting plaintiff\u2019s coat to be cleaned, and defendant\u2019s failure to return the coat, hut the complaint fails to contain a sufficient allegation of special damages, plaintiff\u2019s recovery should be confined to the fair market value of the coat as of the date it was delivered to defendant.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., at August Term, 1940, of BuNcombe.\nAffirmed.\nPlaintiff delivered to tbe defendant a winter coat to be cleaned. Tbe coat was lost and never returned. Plaintiff instituted tbis action in tbe county court of Buncombe County to recover damages, alleging tbe value of tbe coat to be $22.50, and alleging, further, inconvenience, loss of time from school and tbe like.\nAt tbe trial in tbe county court, defendant requested, in writing, special instruction as follows: \u201cThat in no event would tbe jury be authorized to answer tbe issue in an amount exceeding tbe fair market value of tbe coat as of tbe date tbe same was delivered to tbe defendant, and tbe court charges tbe Jury that in no event could tbe Jury award tbe plaintiff an amount exceeding $22.50.\u201d\nTbe court declined to give tbis instruction but gave certain other instructions which would permit a larger recovery. There was a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff in tbe sum of $70.00. Defendant appealed assigning error.\nWhen tbe cause came on to be beard in tbe court below tbe judge sustained, among others, defendant\u2019s assignment of error directed to tbe refusal of the court to give the tendered prayer for instruction, and ordered a new trial. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nDon G. Toung for plaintiff, appellant.\nJones, Ward & Jones for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0261-01",
  "first_page_order": 303,
  "last_page_order": 304
}