{
  "id": 8691443,
  "name": "Frederick Stevelie, adm'r. of Lewis Ferrill v. James Greenlee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevelie v. Greenlee",
  "decision_date": "1827-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "317",
  "last_page": "318",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 317"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 317"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 1869,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.331,
    "sha256": "a9d02a7db58d3d8cbea0f5486a3ff8c3345ef40d00d58899f6eef4d4269bd665",
    "simhash": "1:f752610041e12ad6",
    "word_count": 325
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frederick Stevelie, adm\u2019r. of Lewis Ferrill v. James Greenlee,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hade Judge\nThe book-debt law does not require,, that the articles charged in the books of executors or administrators should be in their own handwriting. The administrator took the oath which the law required. He ga^e the best evidence which the nature of the case admitted of. It was a question altogether for the Jury to decide on, and they have done so. The rule for a new trial should be discharged.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hade Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No Counsel appeared on cither side in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frederick Stevelie, adm\u2019r. of Lewis Ferrill v. James Greenlee,\nFrom Burke.\nWhere an administrator takes the book-debt oath, and swears that the original entry is in the handwriting of a person vyho has not, after diligent enquiry, been heard of for seven years, and that he knows of no one who. can prove his handwriting, the account was held to be sufficiently proved.\nAssumpsit, commenced originally by warrant in September, 1808, and tried on the last Fail Circuit, before Norwooo, Judge.\nOn the trial, the Plaintiff produced the books of his inf\u00e9stale, and swore that be verily believed fhe account charged fherein wn,j just ; that there were no witnesses within his knowledge who could prove the items charged \u2014that, he found the books in the same condition in which they were then exhibited, and that he knew of no credits due the Defendant. It apnea red, on his examination, that the book was not in the handwriting of the intestate* but in that, of two other persons. The Plaintiff swore that lie had made diligent i nquiry for those persons, and had not heard of them for the last seven years, and that he knew of no person who could prove their handv citing.\nHis Honor instructed the Jury, that if they believed the evidence, the account was sufficiently proved, and the Plaintiff entitled to a verdict. The Jury found according to the charge, and the Defendant appealed.\nNo Counsel appeared on cither side in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0317-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 318
}