{
  "id": 8626797,
  "name": "F. K. WATKINS v. MAUDE S. JONES, P. FORREST JONES and WINGATE R. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watkins v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1954-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "311",
  "last_page": "311",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "239 N.C. 311"
    }
  ],
  "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": 141,
    "char_count": 1678,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "sha256": "e1ba7fdf4577b3e48f5fb58ec4c62c94ef7df5238ec21ee39f7f05c9384899bc",
    "simhash": "1:7e8d9579f606104b",
    "word_count": 288
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:12.847603+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. K. WATKINS v. MAUDE S. JONES, P. FORREST JONES and WINGATE R. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDue and careful consideration has been given to each assignment of error presented by tbe appellant on this appeal, and we find no error in tbe trial below of sufficient merit to warrant a disturbance of tbe verdict rendered by tbe jury. ITence, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Grover Lee for appellant.",
      "Victor S. Bryant and Victor S. Bryant, Jr., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. K. WATKINS v. MAUDE S. JONES, P. FORREST JONES and WINGATE R. JONES.\n(Filed 15 January, 1954.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hatch, Special Judge, April Term, 1953, of Dtjeiiam.\nCivil action to recover commissions alleged to be due tbe plaintiff pursuant to tbe terms of an oral agreement for tbe sale of certain real estate owned by tbe defendants and situate on tbe west side of Orange Street in tbe City of Durham.\nTbe plaintiff alleged in bis complaint tbat tbe property was listed with bim for sale in November, 1950, and tbat be made tbe contacts wbieb eventually resulted in its sale.\nTbe defendants denied in tbeir answer tbat tbey bad any contract with tbe plaintiff with respect to tbe sale of tbeir Orange Street property, and alleged tbat tbey sold the property themselves without the intervention or assistance of the plaintiff.\nTbe evidence was' in sharp conflict on the question as to whether tbe plaintiff and tbe defendants bad entered into a contract for tbe sale of property.\nTbe issue wbieb was determinative of this question was answered by tbe jury in favor of the defendants, tbat is, tbat tbe defendants bad not entered into a contract with tbe plaintiff for tbe sale of tbeir property as alleged in tbe complaint. Judgment was entered accordingly and tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nJ. Grover Lee for appellant.\nVictor S. Bryant and Victor S. Bryant, Jr., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0311-01",
  "first_page_order": 355,
  "last_page_order": 355
}