{
  "id": 8630859,
  "name": "C. H. JONES and MRS. C. H. JONES v. JONES LEWIS FURNITURE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Jones Lewis Furniture Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "440",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 439"
    }
  ],
  "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": 202,
    "char_count": 3151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.73380222060099e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5306548760178682
    },
    "sha256": "c2780425f6b2f662e3a21c6e31649b499605298498e97ff860b5500c2258197b",
    "simhash": "1:9ff7a8cd5202769a",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. H. JONES and MRS. C. H. JONES v. JONES LEWIS FURNITURE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Winborne, J.\nDemurrer ore tenus to the complaint for that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, C. S., 518,'inter-posed in this Court by defendant, is well taken.\nIt is contended, and it so appears, that there is no allegation that the defendant made any warranty. The allegation is that \u201cdefendant\u2019s salesman and employee guaranteed,\u201d and \u201crelying upon said guarantee, the plaintiffs purchased the bed.\u201d This is far from alleging that the defendant made the warranty.\nWhile it is provided by statute in this State that in the construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect, the allegations therein shall be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, C. S., 535, the complaint must allege a cause of action, and the Court will not, under this rule, construe into a pleading that which it does not contain. McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., p. 313, section 369.\nDemurrer sustained.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Winborne, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. J. Hill and York & Boyd for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "Hoyle & Hoyle for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. H. JONES and MRS. C. H. JONES v. JONES LEWIS FURNITURE COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 December, 1942.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 15\u2014\nWhile it is provided by statute that in construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect, the allegations therein shall be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, C. S., 535, the complaint must state a cause of action, and the court will not construe into a pleading that which it does not contain.\n2. Same: Sales \u00a7 14\u2014\nIn an action to recover for breach of an express warranty, where the complaint alleges that defendant\u2019s salesman guaranteed that a secondhand bed was free of bugs, and relying thereon plaintiff purchased the bed which was infested with bugs, a demurrer ore tenus to the complaint for that it does not state a cause o\u00ed action, C. S., 518, made in this Court is allowed.\nAppeal by defendant from Olive, Special Judge, at 1 June, 1942, Term of Gtjileoed.\nCivil action to recover for alleged breach of express warranty.\nPlaintiffs in their complaint, in pertinent part allege:\n\u201c3. That on or about May 10, 1941, the plaintiffs purchased from the defendant, and the defendant sold to the plaintiffs, one wine colored sofa-bed for the sum of $16.43.\n\u201c4. That at the time of the sale the defendant\u2019s salesman explained to the plaintiffs that the bed was a second-hand article; that thereupon the plaintiffs inquired of the defendant\u2019s salesman if the bed were free of bedbugs, stating that unless it were free of bugs they were not interested in purchasing it; that the defendant\u2019s salesman and employee guaranteed to plaintiffs that the bed was free of bugs; that, relying upon said guarantee, the plaintiffs purchased the bed.\u201d\nPlaintiii further alleges that in fact \u201cthe bed was infested with bugs,\u201d and thereby the warranty was breached to their humiliation and damage.\nDefendant, in answer filed, admits the sale of the \u201csofa-bed\u201d to plaintiffs, but denies other material allegations.-\nUpon trial below there was judgment on verdict for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nT. J. Hill and York & Boyd for plaintiffs, appellees.\nHoyle & Hoyle for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 484
}