{
  "id": 8576275,
  "name": "MYRTLE SHERRILL v. RICHARD M. BOYCE and Wife, JANET B. BOYCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sherrill v. Boyce",
  "decision_date": "1965-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "561",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 N.C. 560"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 S.E. 2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625331
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619737
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S.E. 2d 314",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562218
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "662"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0660-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 135",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618848
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 3668,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3149675368342878e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6252379965009544
    },
    "sha256": "cb23c40ec267460427547a4a7f077bae4b31faa9bdcbbc5e61229b29dad5e39f",
    "simhash": "1:1e7f54231883e9e8",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MYRTLE SHERRILL v. RICHARD M. BOYCE and Wife, JANET B. BOYCE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWhen a jury trial is waived as provided in G.S. 1-184, the court\u2019s findings of fact have the force and effect of a verdict, Insurance Co. v. Lambeth, 250 N.C. 1, 108 S.E. 2d 36, and an exception to the judgment presents only the question whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Turnage Co. v. Morton, 240 N.C. 94, 81 S.E. 2d 135. Unless the action is a small claim, G.S. 1-539.5, it is irregular for the court to render a verdict on issues submitted to itself, G.S. 1-185. The parties here, however, seem to have contemplated this procedure. In the absence of objection and exception, a new trial will not be ordered because the judge answered issues instead of stating the facts found and conclusions of law separately \u201cif from the judgment it can be determined what the Court found the ultimate facts to be and what the legal basis of the judgment is.\u201d Daniels v. Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 660, 662, 129 S.E. 2d 314, 316. The issues, as stipulated and answered by the court, fully sustain its judgment.\nIn this case we have no more right to disturb the judge\u2019s answer to the issue of damages than we would have had to disturb a jury\u2019s finding. Benton v. Willis, Inc., 252 N.C. 166, 113 S.E. 2d 288. The granting or denial of a motion to set aside a jury\u2019s verdict on the ground that the damages assessed are excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Evans v. Coach Co., 251 N.C. 324, 111 S.E. 2d 187. When the trial judge himself renders the \u201cverdict,\u201d a fortiori, the same rule applies. Even though, upon plaintiff\u2019s evidence, reasonable minds might well differ as to the amount of damages to which she is entitled, yet an abuse of discretion is not manifest.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Battley and Frank 'for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Adams and Dearman and C. B. Winberry for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MYRTLE SHERRILL v. RICHARD M. BOYCE and Wife, JANET B. BOYCE.\n(Filed 3 November, 1965.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 57\u2014\nWhile it is irregular for the court, in a trial by the court under agreement of the parties, to submit issues to itself, where there is no objection or exception thereto such procedure will not require a new trial if it can be ascertained from the issues and the court\u2019s answers thereto that the court found ultimate facts constituting a legal basis for the judgment.\n2. Trial \u00a7 52\u2014\nA finding of the amount of damages by the court under agreement of the parties is as conclusive as though the damages were established by verdict of the jury, and the court\u2019s findings in regard thereto will not be set aside on the ground the damages allowed are excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by defendants from McLean, J., March 1965 Session of IREDELL.\nPlaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injury and property damages sustained on August 12, 1961, when defendant Janet B. Boyce drove the family-purpose automobile owned by her husband, defendant Richard M. Boyce, into the rear of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle while she was stopped at an intersection. A jury trial was duly waived. Defendants stipulated that the issue of negligence should be answered against them and that the only question for the court was the amount of plaintiff\u2019s damages. Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that, in the accident, she suffered an acute neck strain from which she still experiences headaches and muscular spasms. Judge McLean answered an issue with reference to plaintiff\u2019s personal injuries, $8,600.00; as to her property damages, $75.00. Defendants\u2019 motion \u201cto set the verdict aside because it was excessive\u201d was denied. From the judgment that plaintiff recover $8,675.00, defendants appealed.\nBattley and Frank 'for plaintiff appellee.\nAdams and Dearman and C. B. Winberry for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 600,
  "last_page_order": 601
}