{
  "id": 12152341,
  "name": "Doyley vs. Broughton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doyley v. Broughton",
  "decision_date": "1793",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "217",
  "last_page": "218",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 217"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 217"
    }
  ],
  "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": 89,
    "char_count": 911,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "sha256": "47ee4136ee89b041a782bd73e5a8b82167cd791dbd9603c13e90a33b898c8286",
    "simhash": "1:19343dd3a714b03a",
    "word_count": 167
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doyley vs. Broughton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per totam curiam,\nlet it be *amended here, and the judgment affirmed.\nDoderidge, J.\nIf the certiorari was bad, there would be no amendment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per totam curiam, Doderidge, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jermyn, e contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doyley vs. Broughton.\nMich. 3. Car.\nBROUGHTON recovered in the Marshalsea against Doyley, and on this recovery, brought debt in the C. B. The defendant pleaded there nul tiel record, and a certiorari was awarded out of the Chancery for a record, between D. and B. and after the record came up and was sent by mittimus to the K. B. but the mittimus mistook the name of Doyley. Bramston, Serj. moved that judgment might be reversed, for there is no record between B. and D. but between B. C. and an amendment cannot take place, for it would be altering the very judgment.\nJermyn, e contra,\nmoved that the record should be first amended, it being a misprision in the mittimus alone, &c.\nThe court sent for the clerk of B. and examined him, on the amendment in the K. B. and"
  },
  "file_name": "0217-02",
  "first_page_order": 366,
  "last_page_order": 367
}