{
  "id": 8624200,
  "name": "MOSS-MARLOW BUILDING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN L. JONES and His Wife, MRS. JOHN L. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moss-Marlow Building Co. v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1947-03-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "282",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 N.C. 282"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 S. E., 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 762",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619827
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0762-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1744,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0052889892850951e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5405046780719648
    },
    "sha256": "8e5427b1bcd9fda511a77ebbabfb0fc5a22153a27ace273da23f4b085abce588",
    "simhash": "1:ba858f8c02c689b6",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MOSS-MARLOW BUILDING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN L. JONES and His Wife, MRS. JOHN L. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAn application for a bill of particulars under G. S., 1-150, formerly C. S., 534, \u201cis addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and his ruling thereon, made in the exercise of such discretion, is not reviewable on appeal, except perhaps in extreme cases.\u201d Tickle v. Hobgood, 212 N. C., 762, 194 S. E., 461. \"While appellants concede this principle of law, they contend that this ease comes within the exception. However, the argument advanced, in the light of the allegations in the complaint and the exhibit attached thereto, fails in persuasiveness. Hence, the ruling of the court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis A. Whitener for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Willis \u2022& Geitner for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MOSS-MARLOW BUILDING COMPANY, INC., v. JOHN L. JONES and His Wife, MRS. JOHN L. JONES.\n(Filed 26 March, 1947.)\nPleadings \u00a7 37: Appeal and Error \u00a7 40g\u2014\nAn application for a bill of particulars is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the court\u2019s ruling thereon is not reviewable, except perhaps in extreme cases. G. S., 1-150.\nAppeal by defendants from Warlick, J., at 15 November, 1946, Term, of Catawba.\nCivil action to recover on contract.\nPlaintiff attaches to its complaint as \u201cExhibit A\u201d a copy of the contract between it and defendants for the construction of a dwelling house on cost plus basis, and as \u201cExhibit B\u201d what purports to be an itemized list of materials and labor furnished. Defendants, in apt time, moved for a bill of particulars. The court, finding that plaintiff\u2019s complaint, and more particularly \u201cExhibit B,\u201d is sufficiently definite to enable defendants to file answer to complaint, entered order denying the said motion.\nDefendants appeal therefrom to Supreme Court and assign error.\nLouis A. Whitener for plaintiff, appellee.\nWillis \u2022& Geitner for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0282-01",
  "first_page_order": 330,
  "last_page_order": 331
}