{
  "id": 8659547,
  "name": "BROOKS v. SULLIVAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. Sullivan",
  "decision_date": "1901-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "190",
  "last_page": "190",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 190"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "56 N. C., 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/56/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Am. Dec., 182",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N. C., 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275387
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/21/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N. C., 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683883
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/22/0051-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5120777529425635e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6676767641665595
    },
    "sha256": "bb275d3af1a587f53b40b8d28fcdb4fa584a1b0c0b80737591c379b61868c560",
    "simhash": "1:a260d88d680c8ca5",
    "word_count": 239
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BROOKS v. SULLIVAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "C-laRK, J.\nThe only question is whether, when a negotiable note is transferred before maturity as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, the assignee is such holder for value that he takes free from equities of which he had no notice. The \u201cNegotiable Instruments\u201d statute, Acts 1899, Chap. 183, secs. 25-21, settles that such is the case now to the extent of the debt secured, but that is a change of the law, which was previously otherwise. Holderby v. Blum, 22 N. C., 51; Harris v. Horner, 21 N. C., 455, 30 Am. Dec., 182; Potts v. Blackwell, 56 N. C., 449. This case is governed by the law as it stood prior to the act of 1899.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "C-laRK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. B. Womaclc, for the plaintiff.",
      "J. T. Mor ahead, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BROOKS v. SULLIVAN.\n(Filed November 5, 1901.)\n.NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS \u2014 Bills and Notes \u2014 Transfer Before Maturity \u2014 Bona fide Holder \u2014 Acts 1899, Oh. 788, Secs. 25-27.\nAn assignee of a negotiable instrument to secure a debt due him was not a dona fide purchaser, without notice, where he paid no money in consideration of such assignment, until made so by Acts 1899, Ch. 733, Secs. 25-27.\nAotxoN by A. F. Brooks against J. II. Sullivan and J. B. Gerringer, beard by Judge E. W. Timberlatfe and a jury, at January (Special) Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Guilford County. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff appealed.\nT. B. Womaclc, for the plaintiff.\nJ. T. Mor ahead, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0190-01",
  "first_page_order": 222,
  "last_page_order": 222
}