{
  "id": 8626963,
  "name": "A. N. DRYE, Plaintiff, v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Drye v. Radiator Specialty Co.",
  "decision_date": "1941-04-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "863",
  "last_page": "864",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 N.C. 863"
    }
  ],
  "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": 119,
    "char_count": 1140,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "sha256": "8bac897f9b9885f65d18e103a0b4df1376349118bd08da30fd4042df0beede1e",
    "simhash": "1:782a57beda648033",
    "word_count": 185
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:18.105136+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. N. DRYE, Plaintiff, v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb Cubiam.\nTbe evidence is rather voluminous and is quite contradictory as between that of tbe plaintiff and that of tbe defendant. Tbe evidence of tbe plaintiff, if believed, was fully adequate to maintain bis contentions, and tbe evidence of tbe defendant, if believed, was sufficient to defeat him.\nIt was peculiarly a jury case, and the jury has spoken. We find nothing in the exceptions of the defendant that would justify a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Robinson <fi J ones for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. N. DRYE, Plaintiff, v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, Defendant.\n(Filed 30 April, 1941.)\nAppeal by defendant from Clement, J., at October Term, 1940, of MeckleNbubg.\nNo error.\nSuit by plaintiff to recover for amount alleged to be due as balance on salary under special contract. Defendant denied contract or that it owed plaintiff anything upon bis demand, pleaded tbe statute of limitation and set up cross action by way of counterclaim. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in tbe sum of $5,208.32, with interest, subject to stated credits, including counterclaim.\nDefendant appealed.\nG. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.\nRobinson <fi J ones for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0863-01",
  "first_page_order": 905,
  "last_page_order": 906
}