{
  "id": 12132024,
  "name": "HODGES versus CLINTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodges v. Clinton",
  "decision_date": "1792-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "76",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 76"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 76"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1293,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.968980399984396e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36594417686769115
    },
    "sha256": "0256776363dbdc6004a35e12eb512ed658fc554cb9c68852227f24367b91a2b7",
    "simhash": "1:608a653526b53e65",
    "word_count": 224
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HODGES versus CLINTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Judgment for the defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Taylor for the defendant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fayetteville,\nOctober Term, 1792.\nHODGES versus CLINTON.\nCASE. The Jury found the following special verdict.\n\u201cThe Jury sworn, find that the defendant did assume; find \u201cno set-off, find the defendant did not take the benefit of the act \u201cof insolvency, and assess the plaintiff\u2019s damage to \u00a3. 73 16s. and \u201c6s. costs: subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the note \u201con which the plaintiff\u2019s action is grounded, is a negotiable note \u201cwithin the statute, if it is, they find for plaintiff, if not, for defend\"ant.\u201d\nThe note was for \u00a3. 100 currency, payable in tobacco.\nTaylor for the defendant,\nargued, that no decision upon the 3d & 4th Anne 9, to which our act of 1762 was in analogy was to be found, that gave negociability to notes, except they were for the payment of money alone. Besides the many cases establishing the doctrine, that even notes payable in money are not negotiable, if they are contingent, the case of the East-India bond is in point with the present. Moore vs. Venlute. And if any thing else is promised besides the payment of money, the note is not negociable. 1 Sharp. 629. The design of the act, which was to give to notes a circulation equally beneficial to commerce with bills of exchange, would be frustrated by a contrary decision."
  },
  "file_name": "0076-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 85
}