{
  "id": 12136871,
  "name": "Hodge vs. Moor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodge v. Moor",
  "decision_date": "1793",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "15",
  "last_page": "16",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 15"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 15"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "C.C.D.N.C.",
    "id": 17319,
    "name": "United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "sha256": "0d212cc5582bf21e150ef33074075facbbedfc438fd8f7dee77ff57d219476b5",
    "simhash": "1:eb6df6c68d4e0c8f",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hodge vs. Moor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Doderidge, J.\nIf one contracts with I. S. that if he goes to Rome and returns safe, he will pay him \u00a3. 20 two months after his return, then I. S. ought to give notice. Otherwise a great inconvenience would ensue. For he might return in some port in this country and conceal himself, so that the other could not take notice of his return.\nJones, J.\nagreed on the main question. But he said, that in this case, the plea is that the party suit ad hoc requisitus, and the request implies notice of the marriage, because he demands the money on account of the marriage.\nAnd the court agreed, that the request was a sufficient notice, and adjour natur. Postea 97. Poph. 164, 3 Cr. 90. Roll. 461 and 468,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Doderidge, J. Jones, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Noy"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hodge vs. Moor.\nPasch, 2 Car.\nA MAN, in consideration that I. S. would marry his daughter, promised him \u00a3. 1400 after the marriage, upon request. The plaintiff in an action brought on the promise, alledged a request, without any notice of the marriage.\nNoy\nargued, that notice, of the marriage ought to be alledged. He took the distinction where an act is done by a stranger, there the plaintiff ought to take notice as well as the defendant. But it is otherwise where one may take notice, and not the other. This distinction is elucidated in 8 E. 4. 1. And he said, if one bargains and sells a reversion, the bargainee shall have the rent without attornment, or notice; but it is otherwise of a p\u0153nalty, of which there ought to be notice, as appears, 5 Rep. Mattey\u2019s case. 8 Rep. 90. Francis\u2019 case. It was adjudged in the case of Stephen Gurney, that when a lease for years was made to I. S. rendering rent, and a future lease for years made to I. D. to commence at the expiration, forfeiture, or surrender of the first lease, and I. S. surrender to the lessor I. D. if he has no notice of this surrender, shall not forfeit his lease for non payment of rent."
  },
  "file_name": "0015-03",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 197
}