{
  "id": 8607324,
  "name": "HERMAN NEWBERN v. C. R. PUGH et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newbern v. Pugh",
  "decision_date": "1943-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 N.C. 348"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 S. E., 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654740
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N. C., 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631078
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0497-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1289,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20715107328651208
    },
    "sha256": "fa68b8aacd001e8da85dcec81031b465a297d51ae20023eaced9655115b95256",
    "simhash": "1:9377a4f5ba179cfd",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:50.990749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HERMAN NEWBERN v. C. R. PUGH et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nA careful perusal of the record fails to disclose any consummated contract upon which the plaintiff predicates his right of action. The plaintiff did not \u201csign the papers,\u201d as he was required to do by defendant\u2019s letter of 6 February, 1942, but returned them for modification, giving as his reason that the option \u201cwould be without effect\u201d unless the defendant\u2019s husband joined in the agreement. The defendant then sold the property to another.\nThe case is not like McAden v. Craig, 222 N. C., 497, 24 S. E. (2d), 1, or Samonds v. Cloninger, 189 N. C., 610, 127 S. E., 706. It is more nearly in line with Bichardson v. Warehouse and Storage Co., ante, 344, herewith decided.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. J ennette and B. Clarence Dozier for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. Henry LeBoy for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HERMAN NEWBERN v. C. R. PUGH et al.\n(Filed 22 September, 1943.)\nContracts \u00a7 4\u2014\nAcceptance must be unqualified and in tbe terms of the offer; otherwise no contract results.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at March Term, 1943, of Pasquo-TANIC.\nCivil action to. recover damages for alleged breach of contract or option to sell the \u201cPugh\u201d house and lot in Elizabeth City.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered upon consideration of all the evidence, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nJ. W. J ennette and B. Clarence Dozier for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. Henry LeBoy for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 400
}