{
  "id": 8573358,
  "name": "MARVIN E. MEADOWS v. PERDRIX MACHINERY & SALES COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meadows v. Perdrix Machinery & Sales Co.",
  "decision_date": "1965-04-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 372"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 S.E. 2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560334
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0293-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20663907432441042
    },
    "sha256": "b96ddceb6a0fc212dde8b62f492fc9a170ef4139ddc1f2f536559e1f815a487c",
    "simhash": "1:4fbc806e10d957cd",
    "word_count": 242
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARVIN E. MEADOWS v. PERDRIX MACHINERY & SALES COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb Curiam.\nAn examination of the record reveals no error which would warrant a new trial. This case involved only issues of fact. It was fairly submitted to the jury, which seems to have attempted to do equity. If, as defendant stressfully contends,, incompetent evidence was admitted over its objection, the exception taken was worthless because the same testimony had been theretofore or was thereafter given by the witness in other parts of his examination without objection. Dunes Club v. Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 293, 130 S.E. 2d 625.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pittman, Staton & Betts for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Clawson L. Williams, Jr., for defendant.appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARVIN E. MEADOWS v. PERDRIX MACHINERY & SALES COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 April, 1965.)\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., November 30, 1964 Session of Lee.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover the sum of $3,737.00, down payment plus incidental charges on the purchase price of a dry-cleaning plant in Sanford, the sale of which, he alleges, defendant refused to consummate according to the agreement.\nIn its answer, defendant alleged that it was plaintiff who refused to comply with the contract, and it prayed for \u201ca complete accounting\u201d and a monetary judgment against plaintiff based thereon. Each party offered evidence tending to sustain the respective allegations. Upon sharply conflicting evidence the jury, answering stipulated issues, found that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.00, and that plaintiff owed defendant nothing. From judgment entered on the verdict defendant appeals.\nPittman, Staton & Betts for plaintiff appellee.\nClawson L. Williams, Jr., for defendant.appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 408,
  "last_page_order": 409
}