{
  "id": 8620197,
  "name": "BARBARA P. HOUSE v. THE STATE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "House v. State Hospital Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1960-03-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "189",
  "last_page": "190",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 189"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 S.E. 2d 671",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0097-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 2023,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20720455130781756
    },
    "sha256": "a2c354d907ab4fd319873cc622224f844386e52a57a71d0e967296b2f193a89c",
    "simhash": "1:0c5b7487da0bcdf4",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:54.749131+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA P. HOUSE v. THE STATE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CuRiam.\nDefendant argues the court erred in setting the verdict aside because, as it contends, there was no evidence on which the jury could have returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. In this manner it seeks to review the court\u2019s ruling in overruling the motion to nonsuit. No judgment has been rendered against defendant. It may not, by challenging the exercise of the court\u2019s discretion in setting the verdict aside, present for determination the correctness of the court\u2019s ruling on the motion to nonsuit. White v. Keller, 242 N.C. 97, 86 S.E. 2d 795; Byrd v. Hampton, 243 N.C. 627, 91 S.E. 2d 671.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Hill Paylor, Fountain, Fountain, Bridgets & Horton for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Owens & Langley, Herbert H. Taylor, Jr., and Z. Creighton Brin-son for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA P. HOUSE v. THE STATE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.\n(Filed 16 March, 1960.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 3: Trial \u00a7 49\u2014\nWhere the court sets aside the verdict in the exereise of its discretion there is no judgment from which an appeal can lie, and appellant may not present the correctness of the court\u2019s ruling on its motion to nonsuit by challenging the exercise of the court\u2019s discretion in setting aside the verdict.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, J., November 1959 Term, of Edgeoombe.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover payments alleged to be owing under a retirement contract with defendant. Defendant denied liability, asserting the alleged contract was without consideration, was ultra vires and void.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence defendant moved for non-suit. Its motion was denied. It offered no evidence. The court submitted; issues arising on the pleadings. The jury answered the issues in accord with defendant\u2019s contention. Defendant tendered a judgment based on the verdict. The court refused to sign the judgment tendered and in the exercise of its discretion set the verdict aside and ordered another trial. Defendant excepted to the order setting the verdict aside and appealed.\nJohn Hill Paylor, Fountain, Fountain, Bridgets & Horton for plaintiff, appellee.\nOwens & Langley, Herbert H. Taylor, Jr., and Z. Creighton Brin-son for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0189-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 230
}