{
  "id": 8694138,
  "name": "Benjamin H. Martin v. John W. Williams ad'mr. of Alexander Latham",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1828-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "386",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 386"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 386"
    }
  ],
  "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": 158,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.32,
    "sha256": "16cb0da1fac2c26ffa39efab9a9c1f4080872500dbccef9d4620330c64f2e973",
    "simhash": "1:e83a8e5de392c989",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Benjamin H. Martin v. John W. Williams ad'mr. of Alexander Latham,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam\nThe substantial justice of the case is, that the Defendant\u2019s intestate received the money claimed by the Plaintiff, and received it to his use; it was also received on account of the judgment against Bowen, a fact which could not be more satisfactorily established by the production of the judgment.\u2019 But we cannot be ignorant of a very prevailing custom in the country, of surrendering magistrates\u2019judgments to the debtor, upon their being paid ; and in most cases it would be impossible ever to obtain possession of them again. Besides the Defendant ought not to insist upon the. production of it, after he had acknowledged the receipt of it, and must consequently have put it into Judkins\u2019 possession.\nLet the judgment below be reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hogg, for the Plaintiff.",
      "Gaston, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Benjamin H. Martin v. John W. Williams ad'mr. of Alexander Latham,\nFrom Beaufort.\nAn agent, who has given a receipt for a judgment and collected the amount of it, may be subjected in Assumpsit for money had and re*, ceived, without producing the judgment on the trial.\nThe Plaintiff declared in Assumpsit for money had and received, and on the trial, produced an accountable receipt given to hint by the Defendant\u2019s intestate, for a Justice\u2019s judgment against one Bowen. He. then proved by one Judkins, that the amount of ihe judgment liad been collected from Buwen, and paid to the Defendant\u2019s intestate. The witness was ask' d what had become of the judgment, and answered that it had been delivered to Bowen. The Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel admitted that he could not produce (he judgment, and that no attempt had been made to enable him todo so; whereupon bis honor Judge Strange, ruled that Judkins\u2019 testimony could not. go to the Jury in the absence of the judgment, unless that ah-sence was accounted for, and directed a iiousuit, from which the Plaintiff appealed.\nHogg, for the Plaintiff.\nGaston, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0386-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 387
}