{
  "id": 8684546,
  "name": "J. J. MOTT v. J. A. RAMSAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mott v. Ramsay",
  "decision_date": "1884-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "29",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.C. 29"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Ired., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690894
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/26/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8691151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0551-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2701,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1420408488207925e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5788341328007927
    },
    "sha256": "873b8c8f3d425cac18b0a23d24ce8e07e4de26d55959cfc02ac8168396fb203c",
    "simhash": "1:7a65ac162758ed18",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:38.032493+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. J. MOTT v. J. A. RAMSAY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThe case comes before us on appeal of the defendant'without any statement of the \u201cease on appeal,\u201d and nothing in the record to point- us to any exception to the judgment of the court below. In all such cases it has been the uniform practice-of this court to affirm the judgment of the superior court. Swepson v. Summey, 74 N. C., 551; Utley v. Fay, 70 N. C., 303; Turner v. Foard, S3 N. C., 683; State v. Orrell, Busb., 217; Fleming v. Halcomb, 4 Ired., 268.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. McCorlclc, Armfield and Kerr Craige, for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. J. MOTT v. J. A. RAMSAY.\nPractice \u2014 Affirmation of Judgment,\nThe judgment of the court below will be affirmed, where there is no case on appeal, and nothing in the record to show an exception taken.\nCivil Action tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Rowan Superior Court, before Graves, J.\nThe plaintiff, as revenue collector of the United States, brought this action against the defendant for money collected by him as the deputy collector of the plaintiff, and not paid over.\nThe defendant sets up a counterclaim as a defense to the action^ alleging that by reason of a contract with the plaintiff for additional compensation, made subsequently to his appointment as deputy, the plaintiff became indebted to him in a much larger amount than that claimed by the plaintiff in his complaint.\nThe matter was referred to a referee to take the account between the parties. The referee reported that in the absence of such a contract as that set up by the defendant, he was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount mentioned in his report; but if, on the other hand, there was such a contract, then the plaintiff was indebted to {\u00a1he defendant in a larger amount than was claimed by the plaintiff against him.\nThe referee suggested to the court, that whether there was such a contract between the parties as that alleged by the defendant but denied by the plaintiff, was a proper question for a jury. The court being of that opinion, accordingly, at the spring term, 1883, of Rowan superior court, the following issue was submitted to the jury:\n\u201cDid the plaintiff and the defendant on or about the 27th day of April, 1872, make a new contract, whereby the plaintiff J. J. Mott agreed to pay the defendant John A. Ramsay, as compensation for his services after that date, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars per month?\u201d To which the jury l\u2019esponded: \u201cThey did not.\u201d\nThere being no exception taken to the report of the referee, judgment was rendered on behalf of the plaintiff for the sum of \u00a7162.11, with interest from the 18th of February, 1874, as reported by the referee. From this judgment the defendant appealed to this court.\nMessrs. McCorlclc, Armfield and Kerr Craige, for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0029-01",
  "first_page_order": 45,
  "last_page_order": 46
}