{
  "id": 11272924,
  "name": "WILLIAM T. ROGERS v. GEORGE B. MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1882-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "85",
  "last_page": "88",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.C. 85"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 N. C., 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684323
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C., 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277600
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698051
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277539
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C., 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682444
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Jones, 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8682575
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/49/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684323
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C., 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277600
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698051
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C., 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682444
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Jones, 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8682575
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/49/0309-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 353,
    "char_count": 5179,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.778255049781731e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8349341988664204
    },
    "sha256": "08825b708ef381dd918c600c0ee03626bf434f7b16360ec1a5ed8748225cf25f",
    "simhash": "1:2f379e20fe6e307a",
    "word_count": 909
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:32.041451+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM T. ROGERS v. GEORGE B. MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nIn the opinion delivered at the present term in Wynne v. Prairie, ante, 73, we adverted to section 217 of the C. C. P. and the proper construction to put upon its provision for a final judgment in \u201c an action arising on contract for the recovery of money only,\u201d where the complaint was sworn to and no answer filed. We expressed the opinion that the cases contemplated were those in which a specific sum was contracted to be paid, and the section did not extend to those implied contracts to pay for goods sold or services rendered, whatever they were reasonably worth and whose value was to be determined by others. The present appeal is of this kind. The action is for goods sold and delivered, board and lodging furnished and money lent, not at an agreed price, but which the complaint declares \u201c were reasonably worth\u201d the sum of $514.30.\nUnder the former practice, if the action be in assumpsit, case, covenant or the like, to recover an unliquidated demand, or uncertain damages for an inj ury sustained, it is called an interlocutory j udgment, it being necessary before such, judgment can be finally entered up, to take some further steps in order to get such demand or damages liquidated-or assessed. This is done by a writ of inquiry. 1 Sell. Pr., 347; Step. Pl., 105.\nReferring to the practice in actions of assumpsit, Battle, J., says: Upon a default in that action which sounds in damages, the judgment is necessarily interlocutory. Hartsfield v. Jones, 4 Jones, 309.\nThe rule prescribed in the Revised Code, ch. 31, \u00a7 91, dispensed with a jury and directs the clerk to compute the interest preparatory to a final judgment by default in suits \u201cinstituted on a single bond, a covenant for the payment of money, bill of exchange, promissory note, or a sigued account,\u201d contemplating the rendition of such judgment upon written instruments which themselves specify the precise sum to be paid, and need only an estimate of accrued interest. The like general rule has been recognized and followed under the new procedure.\nDick. J., speaking for the court in Parker v. Smith, 64 N. C., 291, uses this language : \u201cThe case before us is an action of assumpsit for goods, wares and merchandise, sold and delivered, and the specific articles are not set forth in the declaration. The judgment by default admitted the cause of action, and the plaintiffs were entitled to nominal damages, without introducing any proof. But in seeking substantial damages, they were not relieved from the necessity of proving the delivery of each article and the value thereof.\u201d See White v. Snow, 71 N. C., 232; Mayfield v. Jones, 70 N. C., 536; Oates v. Gray, 66 N. C., 442.\nIn the'last case the judgment was reversed for irregularity, having been entered up as final, on an unsworn complaint for goods sold, &c., and the court adverts to the fact that the complaint was not verified, but does not attempt to mark the line of discrimination between the cases in which the judgment may he final and those in which it must be interlocutory. The section of the Code under review, so far as it undertakes to delegate judicial power to the clerk which he might exercise in vacation, has been superseded and rendered inoperative by subsequent legislation which makes the summons returnable to terms of the court, and the judgments the act of the judge and not of the subordinate officer under him. Bat. Rev., ch, 18; Mabry v. Erwin, 78 N. C., 45.\nThe result seems to restore tbe old practice in this particular, and to refer the inquiry of damages after an interlocutory judgment to the jury acting under the supervision of the judge, and not to leave this to the mere oath of the plaintiff as to what he supposes those damages to be.\nThe judgment must therefore be reversed for irregularity, and this will be certified to the end that the cause proceed in the court below.\nError. Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Argo & Wilder, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Gatling & Whitaker, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM T. ROGERS v. GEORGE B. MOORE.\nJudgment, final and interlocutory\u2014 Writ of Inquiry \u2014 Damages.\n1. Judgment final may be rendered in an action for the recovery of money where a specific sum is contracted to be paid, and where the complaint is sworn to and no answer filed. O. C. E., \u00a7217.\n2. But in an action for goods sold or services rendered, and the like, even though the complaint he verified and no answer filed, the judgment is interlocutory, and the former practice of referring the inquiry of damages to a jury under the supervision of the judge, is restored by the act suspending the Code. Bat. Rev., ch. 18.\n(Hartsfield v. Jones, 4 Jones, 309; Parker v. Smith, 64 N. C., 291; White w. Snow, 71 N. C., 232; Mayfield v. Jones, 70 N. C., 536; Oates v. Gray, 66 N. C., 442; Mabry v. Erwin, 78 N. C., 45, cited and approved.)\nCivil Action tried at January Term, 1882, of Wake Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.\nThe plaintiff filed a verified complaint demanding payment for the sum of |514.'30, alleged to be due on account of money lent, board and lodging furnished, and goods sold and delivered, and at the trial judgment by default final for want of an answer was rendered, and the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Argo & Wilder, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Gatling & Whitaker, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0085-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 104
}