{
  "id": 8693916,
  "name": "James S. Battle v. Blake & Grey Little, adm'rs of Grey Little",
  "name_abbreviation": "Battle v. Little",
  "decision_date": "1828-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "381",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 381"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 381"
    }
  ],
  "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": 162,
    "char_count": 1968,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.298,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.050042922922503e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5045875261453467
    },
    "sha256": "c9e6cf0df67a972f34eb6a54ca4452a82e0fa8b8da15ea3af597c648ab426f6a",
    "simhash": "1:8a2f651758655643",
    "word_count": 348
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James S. Battle v. Blake & Grey Little, adm\u2019rs of Grey Little."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe think whether due diligence had been used in endeavoring to collect the debt from Drum-mond, was a question of law, as it arose in this case.\u2014 We also think as the Plaintiff did not take judgment against Drummond\u2019s bail upon the return of two writs of sci.fa. instead of issuing a third, he did not use that diligence which the case required. Let the judgment be reversed, and a new trial granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gaston, for the Defendants.",
      "Hogg, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James S. Battle v. Blake & Grey Little, adm\u2019rs of Grey Little.\nFrom Edgecomb.\nWhat is due diligence is a question of law, and where a guarantor was bound after a due course of law'ugairist the principal creditor, neglect to enter a judgment against bail after two nihils discharges him.\nCOVENANT upon a deed executed by the Defendants\u2019 intestate, whereby he had assigned severa] notes to the Plaintiff, and bound himself \u201c for the money due on them provided said Battle failed to get it after a due course of law.\u201d The breach assigned was \u2018Ghat Use Plaintiff had failed to get, after a due course of law, the money called for in a note made isy one John Drummond,\u201d which was one of those assigned by the deed on which the action was brought.\nOn the trial, the, record of a suit against Drummond on this bond was introduced, in which, after many continuances and much unnecessary delay, as was contended, by the Defendants, a judgment was obtained upon which a ca, sa. issued. After a return o\u00ed non est inventus, two writs of scire Jadas were issued, which-were both returned nihil,, when instead of faking judgment against the bail by default, a third was issued, upon which Drummond , v as surrendered in discharge of his bail.\nHis honor Judge Martin, instructed the Jury that the Plaintiff was bound to that diligence which a prudent' man would use in his own business, and left it to them to say whether he had used that diligence or not. A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, and the Defendants appealed.\nGaston, for the Defendants.\nHogg, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0381-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}