{
  "id": 8611028,
  "name": "EUGENE G. MORRIS, JR., v. J. H. WRAPE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Wrape",
  "decision_date": "1951-04-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "462",
  "last_page": "463",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "233 N.C. 462"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 S.E. 2d 551",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1757,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4731577014721708
    },
    "sha256": "7be9b00d40886d489089c4a03351bb84e3e3822310fac2a4bd628334def7794b",
    "simhash": "1:44a7408afe4779f2",
    "word_count": 300
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:46.396528+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EUGENE G. MORRIS, JR., v. J. H. WRAPE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nThe plaintiff assigns error in the ruling of the trial court in the admission of certain testimony, and in the court\u2019s charge to the jury in the particulars specified. We have examined each of these assignments of error and are unable to perceive harm to the plaintiff as result of any of the rulings complained of.\nThough the evidence was sharply contradictory, this was submitted to the jury fairly, and the applicable principles of law arising thereon correctly stated. G.S. 1-180; Gibbs v. Armstrong, ante, 219, 63 S.E. 2d 551. The issues of fact raised by the pleadings and the testimony were decided by the jury against the contentions of the plaintiff, and the result will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith <& Walker for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Miller & Moser for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EUGENE G. MORRIS, JR., v. J. H. WRAPE.\n(Filed 11 April, 1951.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 40e\u2014\nThe verdict of the jury upon controverted issues of fact is conclusive in the absence of prejudicial error of law committed in the trial of the cause.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sharp, Special Judge, October Term, 1950, of RaNdolph.\nNo error.\nThis was an action to recover broker\u2019s commission alleged to be due for sale of defendant\u2019s real property.\nIssues were submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant agree to pay the plaintiff the sum of $500.00 as a realtor\u2019s commission to sell the Mills property for him, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.\n\u201c2. If so did the plaintiff procure E. C. Bruton as a purchaser, ready, willing and able to purchase the Mills property on defendant\u2019s terms? Answer: No.\n\u201c3. In wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to the plaintiff ? Answer: No.\u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict plaintiff appealed.\nSmith <& Walker for plaintiff, appellant.\nMiller & Moser for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0462-01",
  "first_page_order": 512,
  "last_page_order": 513
}