{
  "id": 236566,
  "name": "John Cook, appellant, vs. Sampson Gray, appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cook v. Gray",
  "decision_date": "1829-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "84",
  "last_page": "85",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 84"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 9132,
    "name": "Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2316,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "08b992d324b9e82bfbd9c1123cf737ec656cd663acc055ff16a7b888da5f030c",
    "simhash": "1:08abe0b83b583cbb",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Cook, appellant, vs. Sampson Gray, appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion op the Court.\u2014 The first assignment of error is, that \u201c the action of debt will not lie in this case.\u201d In answer to this it will be sufficient to say, that the statute gives to the assignee the same remedy that the original holder had. The second objection is, \u201cthe declaration is not sufficient.\u201d The declaration is sufficient. 3. \u201c The whole sum is not due for which judgment was rendered.\u201d The averments in the declaration are sufficient to charge the defendant and warrant a judgment for the debt and interest. 4. \u201c The instrument declared on is not a promissory note, as described in the declaration; and the court erred in rendering judgment on a different instrument than the one declared on.\u201d It does not appear that the court rendered judgment on any instrument in writing other than the one set forth in the declaration. The production of it did not make it a part of the record, unless it was produced on oyer. 5. \u201c The computation of interest was from a wrong time; three days of grace ought to be allowed.\u201d This court has before decided that the days of grace allowed on mercantile paper do not attach to promissory notes. 6. \u201c The judgment is not sufficient, or such as the law requires in such cases.\u201d This objection is answered by the opinion in the case of Reider v. Fisher, ante. 7. \u201c The whole proceedings are erroneous, prout patet per recordam.\u201d The whole proceedings, except the de-\nfendant\u2019s plea, are regular, prout patet per recordam\u201e 8. \u201c The contract is a nudum pactum, and shown to be so in the declaration, and therefore no judgment could be entered.\u201d The promissory note, as set out in the declaration, is not a nudum pactum. It is averred to be for \u201c value received; \u201d but even if it did not, our statute makes it unnecessary to show that a note is made on a good consideration. On its face it imports a consideration,. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Cook, appellant, vs. Sampson Gray, appellee.\n1. A note sued on is not part of tlie record, unless produced on oyer.\n2. Days of grace are not allowed on promissory notes.\n3. The case of Reeder v. Fisher cited and approved.\n4. A note imports a consideration.\nNovember, 1829.\n\u2014 Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, determined before Benjamin Johnson, William Trimble, Thomas P. Eskridge, and James W. Bates, judges of the Superior Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0084-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 101
}
