{
  "id": 11277509,
  "name": "Isaac Coleman v. John Crumpler et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coleman v. Crumpler",
  "decision_date": "1830-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 508"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 508"
    }
  ],
  "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": 278,
    "char_count": 5124,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.359,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.088850255036537e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46724944195588236
    },
    "sha256": "bc0c4317ab9ecbe6b59994602c20232d420c939a0678b16d920e3d2842ed4d48",
    "simhash": "1:14b9a508f565ba33",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Isaac Coleman v. John Crumpler et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Chief-Justice,\nafter stating the case as above proceeded : \u2014 This action cannot be sustained.\u2014 It is too well settled, to require either argument or authority to show, that a written document cannot by parol be made to mean any thing but what its words, that is, itself imports. It certainly cannot be contradicted. I enter not into the doctrine of ambiguities, either latent or patent. The case does not require it. Parol evidence can neither bend the bond to the record, northe record to the bond. It was therefore properly rejected. Then as to the breach proven by the record. The breach alleged is, as it should be, according to the meaning of the words of the condition ; that is, according of their legal import; to-wit, that the Court, either the Supreme- Court or that of Lenoir, (for I give no opinion, whether the decree of that Court, or any Court having jurisdiction of the cause, is not within the legal import of the words, \u201cthe final decree of the Supreme Court,\u201d) rendered a judgment in the suit mentioned in the condition of the bond aforesaid, wherein Isaac Coleman is Plaintiff and John Crumpler and Mary Crumpler are Defendants. The record offered to support that breach proved, that there was a decree in a suit wherein Isaac Coleman was Plaintiff, and John Crumpler and Mary Coleman were Defendants, which Crumpler had failed to perform. Certainly such evidence cannot, by the most strained construction, support the allegation made in the replication. The Judge was therefore right in instruct-' ing the jury, that there was no evidence. This mistake, for it evidently is one, is much to be lamented ; but the Court cannot correct it, or bind these Defendants further than they have bound themselves.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Let the judgment below be affirmed-.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Chief-Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gaston, for the Plaintiff.",
      "Seawell, for the Defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dec. 1830.\nIsaac Coleman v. John Crumpler et al.\nFrom Lenoir.\nJn an action on a bond conditioned to perform the decree in a suit iii, which A and B were Defendants \u2014 held, that the record of \u00e1 suit in Which B and C were Defendants, did not support the breach as-sighed. l(\nJfeld also, that parol evidence to prove that the name of C was inserted in the bond .by mistake, instead of the name of A, was inadmissible.\nWhether the breach of a bond, comlitiom d to perform the final decree of the Supreme Court, is supported by evidence of a fhilure to perform the decree of a Superior Cour'-, to which the cause was afterwards remanded by the Supreme Court \u2014 Qu?\nDebt upon a bond executed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, for the sum of 2500 dollars. Upon oyer, the Condition was, \u201c that if the said John Crumpler shall and will perform arid abide by such final decree as may be made against him by the Honorable Judges of (he Su* preme Court of North Carolina, in the suit now pending in said Court, wherein the aforesaid Isaac Coleman is Complainant, and the said John Crumpler and Mary Crumpler, are Defendants, in Equity,\u201d then, &c.\nThe Defendants pleaded. 1st, non est factum \u2014 \u00bfd, non infregerunt conventionem \u2014 3d, Performance.\nIn his replication, the Plaintiff assigned as a breach, the following facts: That a suit was pending in the Supreme Court, in which Isaac Coleman was Plaintiff, and John Crumpler and Mary Coleman, Defendants, in which suit the said bond was taken \u2014 and which was, by the order of the Supreme Court, tried in the. Court of Equity in the county of Lenoir, w here a final decree for the sum of 1150 dollars, with interest, &c. was entered for the Plaintiff, which John Crumpler had failed (o perform and abide by. Issue w as taken upon this, and (he cause was tried before his Honor Judge Donnbxx, on the last \u00a9ircuii\nThe Plaintiff produced a record of a cause pending; in the Supreme Court, Uefwi en Isaac Coleman, Plaintiff, and John Crumpler and Mary Coleman, Defendants, in which the Defendant Crumpler w.,s directed to give a bond, similar to the one declared on in this action, ami which was by a subsequent order of the Court, remanded fm hearing to the Court of Equity for the county ol' Lenoir \u2014 and also the record of a final decree in tha* cause made by the Court of Equity for Lenoir County, whereby the Defendant Crumpler was directed to pay the Plaintiff 1150 dollars, with interest. \u2014 He then offered to prove by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, that the cause which pended in the Supreme Court, and in which there was an order for the Defendant\u2019- giving a bond, was the same cause which was finally decided in Lenoir, and that the bond now sued on, was taken in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court $ but by mistake, the name of Mary Crumpler, instead of Mary Coleman, was inserted in the condition. This was objected to by tire Counsel for the Defendants, as tending to control by parol testimony either the record or the bond, and was rejected by bis Honor. It was aLo objected by the Counsel for the Defendants, that the record of a decree of Lenoir Court of Equity did not support the breach assigned by the Plaintiff, and his Honor being of this opinion, the Plaintiff, in submission to it, suffered a nonsuit and appealed.\nGaston, for the Plaintiff.\nSeawell, for the Defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 530
}