{
  "id": 2219536,
  "name": "JOHN MIMIDIS v. ANDREW H. PAPOULIAS and SOCRATES A. LEVAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mimidis v. Papoulias",
  "decision_date": "1956-09-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "479",
  "last_page": "480",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 N.C. 479"
    }
  ],
  "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": "54 S.E. 2d 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0197-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07755123947380715
    },
    "sha256": "c04f8d929209f2abc726d6b9c74f76a8958a4bb2e12cf9564d644c787ff8c025",
    "simhash": "1:ef8bebd5696647cf",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Johnson, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN MIMIDIS v. ANDREW H. PAPOULIAS and SOCRATES A. LEVAS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nThis was a consent reference. The findings and conclusions of the referee appear to be supported by evidence and these were adopted and approved by the court. Hence the judgment will be affirmed. Anderson v. McRae, 211 N.C. 197, 189 S.E. 639; Griffin v. Jones, 230 N.C. 612, 54 S.E. 2d 920.\nAffirmed.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "I. C. Crawford and L. C. Stoker for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Irvin Monk and Ward & Bennett for defendant Papoulias, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN MIMIDIS v. ANDREW H. PAPOULIAS and SOCRATES A. LEVAS.\n(Filed 19 September, 1956.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 49\u2014\nTbe findings of fact of the referee in a consent reference, approved by the trial court, are conclusive when supported by evidence.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant Papoulias from Froneberger, J., January Term, 1956, of Buncombe.\nThis was a suit to settle the partnership between plaintiff and defendants, who had been doing business as Pack Square Hat Cleaners. Plaintiff alleged there was a balance due him by defendant Papoulias for the purchase of one-half interest in the business in the sum of $2,500, and that Papoulias was indebted to him on other items. Defendant Papoulias admitted he owed plaintiff $2,500 as alleged, but contended plaintiff was indebted to him on several matters growing out of their dealing.\nThere was a consent reference. The referee reported that defendant Papoulias owed plaintiff $2,500 balance on purchase of one-half interest in the partnership, but that the records were incomplete, inaccurate, and conflicting, and that it was impossible to determine the amount, if any, plaintiff owed Papoulias or defendant Papoulias owed plaintiff; that defendant Levas had been settled with in full and was not entitled to recover anything. Defendant Papoulias filed exceptions to the referee\u2019s report.\nJudge Fountain overruled the exceptions and adopted the findings of the referee, but remanded the cause to the referee to further consider the evidence and determine if either plaintiff or defendant Papoulias was indebted to the other. The referee reported that he found defendant Papoulias was not indebted to the plaintiff and that plaintiff was not indebted to the defendant Papoulias. Defendant Papoulias filed exceptions to the referee\u2019s further report.\nJudge Froneberger concluded that the findings by the referee in this supplemental report were correct, overruled the exceptions and approved and confirmed the report.\nDefendant Papoulias appealed.\nI. C. Crawford and L. C. Stoker for plaintiff, appellee.\nIrvin Monk and Ward & Bennett for defendant Papoulias, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0479-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 526
}