{
  "id": 2085587,
  "name": "HENRY CAUBLE v. JOHN A. BOYDEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cauble v. Boyden",
  "decision_date": "1873-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 N.C. 434"
    }
  ],
  "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": 152,
    "char_count": 2185,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "sha256": "c83afef65b2d067861c3b3ef4238a99552597ccc0ead004efdf6591a794208a2",
    "simhash": "1:2389f51fb24a6132",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:51.762407+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY CAUBLE v. JOHN A. BOYDEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThe plaintiff brought an action before a Justice in the nature of a quantum mernit, for work and labor Rone. The defendant alleged that it was done under a written contract, wdrich had been paid in full, and offered the contract and receipt of the plaintiff in evidence. The \u2022Justice excluded it. This exclusion must have been because the Justice found as a fact that the work claimed for, was Independent of the contract, and that the contract did not touch plaintiff\u2019s claim. His judgment on this point (being on a matter of fact) was final, the sum found due being less than $25, and was not subject to review by the Superior Court or the Judge.\nWe do not understand the record to say that the Judge undertook to review it. He states, as we understand him, 4hat he found that the Justice had found the fact that the plaintiff\u2019s claim was outside of the written contract, and that notwithstanding the contract, plaintiff was entitled to recover $23.75. He therefore affirmed the judgment of the Justice. There was no error in this.\nJudgment affirmed, and judgment here accordingly.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bailey, for appellant.",
      "Jones & Jones, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY CAUBLE v. JOHN A. BOYDEN.\nThe finding of certain facts by a Justice of the Peace, on the trial of an action In which the recovery is for less than 825, Is final, and not the subject of re* view by the Judge or the Superior Court.. .\nCivil action, tried by his Honor, Cloud, J., at Chambers, November 20th, 1872, at the Superior Court of Rowan county.\nPlaintiff brought his action in a Justice\u2019s Court, for the recovery of $35, due for work and labor done.\nThe defense was, that there was a written contract con-concerning the work, the terms of which had been complied with by defendant, he insisting that such fact excluded the introduction of parol evidence. The Justice found as a fact, that after the completion of the terms of the written contract, a parol contract was made, and allowed the plaintiff to prove it, after objection by defendant.\nJudgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $23.75, from which defendant appealed. Judge Cloud .affirmed the judgment, and defendant again appealed.\nBailey, for appellant.\nJones & Jones, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 442,
  "last_page_order": 443
}