{
  "id": 12165460,
  "name": "ELIZABETH EDMUNDS v. EDWIN ALLEN et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edmunds v. Allen",
  "decision_date": "1948-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "229 N.C. 250"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 S. E., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S. E., 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628228
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S. E., 807",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627588
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N. C., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0713-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 1852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.286441217229267
    },
    "sha256": "b1d346871d754078704ea6cfae3a0626aa206927a4327ceb6e002cc2a41868c5",
    "simhash": "1:529793e8522724b3",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:54.231798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH EDMUNDS v. EDWIN ALLEN et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nWhile there may have been some slight error in the trial, none appears on exceptive assignment of error which justifies another hearing. The controversy narrowed itself largely to issues of fact, determinable alone by the jury.\nThe motion to set aside the verdict for excessiveness was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on the showing here made. Hawley v. Powell, 222 N. C., 713, 24 S. E. (2d), 523; Johnston v. Johnston, 213 N. C., 255, 195 S. E., 807; Cole v. R. R., 211 N. C., 591, 191 S. E., 353; Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.\nThe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams \u2022& Williams for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Guy Weaver for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH EDMUNDS v. EDWIN ALLEN et al.\n(Filed 22 September, 1948.)\nTrial \u00a7 49 \u00bd : Appeal and Error \u00a7 40b\u2014\nA motion to set aside the verdict for excessivencss is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not ordinarily reviewable on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Clement, J., at July Term, 1948. of Buncombe.\nCivil action to recover damages for injury to Oriental rugs deposited in defendant\u2019s warehouse for storage.\nUpon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:\n\u201c1. Did the defendants contract and agree to store the rugs of the plaintiff mentioned in the complaint in a moth-proof room, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer : Yes.\n\u201c2. If so, did the defendants breach said contract? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c3. Were the rugs of plaintiff damaged while in the care and custody of the defendants as warehouseman, through the negligence of the defendants? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c4. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover on account of damage to her said rugs? Answer : $2,550.00.\u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nWilliams \u2022& Williams for plaintiff, appellee.\nGuy Weaver for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 304,
  "last_page_order": 305
}