{
  "id": 11277635,
  "name": "Richard Mitchell v. James Durham",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. Durham",
  "decision_date": "1830-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 538"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 538"
    }
  ],
  "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": 171,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.359,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.638496911739997e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8229080151004943
    },
    "sha256": "6a2f9419c4e6a4bd5464395ecca6077ce00795620e7bd06ea48200e7f0d9cbb7",
    "simhash": "1:eaab6a1e0746ca02",
    "word_count": 389
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard Mitchell v. James Durham,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, Judge.\nThe instructions to the jury are. now out of the case, by the Counsel for the Defendant moving in arrest of judgment, and thereby abandoning the rule for a new trial.\nThe ground of the motion in this Court is, that the count charging the Defendant as deputy Sheriff is bad. The case cited in argument, (Cameron v. Reynolds Cowp, 403.) besides many others, does undoubtedly show, that for a mere non-feasance, without any wrongful act done by the deputy, the action must be against the principal, and not the deputy.\nThe rule too is so perfectly established, as not to require an authority, that in civil cases, (tho\u2019 it is otherwise in criminal.) if a general verdict, is. given on several Gounts, of which one is bad, there cannot be judgment: because the Court cannot say to which the evidence r\u00ab\u00a1e-ferred. The Plaintiff ought to have withdrawn his evidence on the defective couut, or moved the Court to enter the verdict or to amend it, so as to make it refer to fie g00(] parts 0f the declaration, if the evidence Would have justified the Court. u\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Let the judgment below be reversed, and judgment arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard Mitchell v. James Durham,\nFrom Person.\nPor a mere non-feasance by a deputy, without any wrongful act, an action must be brought against the principal.\nCase, in which the Plaintiff declared, 1st, for a breach of duty by the Defendant, as the agent.of the Plaintiff $ $d, for a neglect of the Defendant in the discharge of his duty as a Constable; 3d, for a similar neglect in the discharge of his duty as a deputy Sheriff. The \u00a1\u00a1leas were, not guilty, and accord and satisfaction. The jury found \u201c all the issues in favor of the Plaintiff.\u201d And the Defendant appealed.\nDec. 1830.\nA case was made up in the Court below by his Honor Judge StraNGE, upon a motion for a new trial \u2014 which it is unnecessary to state, as Winston, for the Defendant, in this Court, moved in arrest of judgment, because the verdict was general, and the third count in the Declaration was defective, inasmuch as a deputy is not liable for a non-feasance, the rule being respondeat superior. For this, he cited Cameron v. Reynolds (Uowp-403).\nNo Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 560
}