{
  "id": 8622593,
  "name": "HARRY R. ROTH v. AUGUSTA H. LUCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roth v. Luck",
  "decision_date": "1955-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 175"
    }
  ],
  "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": 112,
    "char_count": 1148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "sha256": "d76b43869ed20ddff18e035312a20c2252c9dae34b842a79e7d63fc63f9f122b",
    "simhash": "1:2827082bde57297f",
    "word_count": 190
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HARRY R. ROTH v. AUGUSTA H. LUCK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cukiam.\nWe think the plaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Consequently, the defendant\u2019s exceptions to the ruling of the court below on the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, are overruled. The additional exceptions present no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a disturbance of the verdict below.\nNo error.\nHiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for appellee.",
      "H. Wade Yates for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARRY R. ROTH v. AUGUSTA H. LUCK\n(Filed 23 November, 1955.)\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., July Term, 1955, of RaN-bolph.\nThis is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $347.63 in commissions alleged to be due from the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff four per cent commission on all merchandise sold for and on her behalf, and that pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff sold $8,690.86 worth of merchandise on which the commission has not been paid.\nThe jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed. From the judgment entered on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nOttway Burton for appellee.\nH. Wade Yates for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-02",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}