{
  "id": 8697466,
  "name": "John E. Wood v. Richard Brownrigg Ex'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wood v. Brownrigg",
  "decision_date": "1832-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "430",
  "last_page": "431",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 430"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 430"
    }
  ],
  "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": 173,
    "char_count": 1738,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.378,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.279034880960449e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7847399597428267
    },
    "sha256": "fd11e23bf2d542db06c74e7726574d4e38f7dc25dd20563ee39427fa1c259be7",
    "simhash": "1:7fcb102192568669",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John E. Wood v. Richard Brownrigg Ex\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, Judge.\nThe question arises on the construction of the act of 1816, (Tien. c. 925,) and I think there cannot be a doubt as to the meaning of the act. It does not change the rate of interest by reason of any stipulation as to the rate, expressly introduced into the contract, so as to attach to it through all time and in all hands. But it only provides that all guardians may recover compound interest, on bonds pay able to them in that'capacity. Why? Because they are generally liable for such interest \u2014 when that liability ceases, that is, when the wardship is at an end, the interest returns to the ordinary legal standard, because it is then a common debt, and not one which the guardian is compelled to make, iri the discharge of his duty to keep money out. As long as the money is the property of a ward, compound interest accrues, and no longer; for then the lato ward; , or late guardian may get it in. This was said before in the caso of Hooks v. Selers, at December term, 1829, and substantially held in Ryan v. Blount. (1 Eq. Rep. 382.)\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment appirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.",
      "Iredell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John E. Wood v. Richard Brownrigg Ex\u2019r.\nUnder the act of 1816, c 925,) a guardian is not authorised to recover compound interest, unless the ward can demand it of him.\nDebt, upon a bond made by the defendant\u2019s testator. payable to tfie plaintiff, as the guardian of a female in fant. The ward married before this action was brought, and the only question on the trial was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover compound interest, after the marriage. Swain, Judge, at Bertie, on the last Spring Circuit, ruled he was not, and judgment being entered accordingly, he appealed.\nNo counsel appeared for the plaintiff.\nIredell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0430-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}