{
  "id": 11270414,
  "name": "A. H. MOOSE v. A. CROWELL, admr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moose v. Crowell",
  "decision_date": "1908-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "552",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. 551"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 N. C., 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N. C., 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277173
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N. C., 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/31/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650177
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N. C., 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277173
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0379-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1962,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140453748461783
    },
    "sha256": "f3a253ace7e421104ade5184f73eaa5cf021efba60024de6c78417393393dc99",
    "simhash": "1:ebc94d7b05115127",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. H. MOOSE v. A. CROWELL, admr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clake, C. J.\nAction on a bond alleged to have been executed by defendant\u2019s intestate. Slie could not write. Non est factum was pleaded. There was evidence by several wit-ness\u00e9s that she said that the note was hers, that she said her son, Henry, wrote the note for her, and that she had been seen to make payments on it and direct credits therefor to be entered on the bond.\nThe only defense relied on is that, this being a bond, there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury to prove that it was \u201csigned, sealed and delivered\u201d by the obligor or by her authority. Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. C., 193, held that it was sufficient if the party afterwards acknowledged it as his bond, for the acknowledgment, if believed, is of execution, including delivery, and the seal imports consideration. Angier v. Howard, 94 N. C., 27. This subsequent acknowledgment. here was express and accompanied by repeated payments for a long series of years, and duly entered as credits on the bond by the intestate\u2019s direction. This distinguishes this case from McKee v. Hicks, 13 N. C., 379, and Kime v. Brooks, 31 N. C., 218, which are relied on by the defendant. In refusing the motion for nonsuit there was\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clake, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Armfield, -Jerome & Maness for plaintiff.",
      "Montgomery & Growell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. H. MOOSE v. A. CROWELL, admr.\n(Filed 6 May, 1908).\nBonds \u2014 Acknowledgment by Obligor \u2014 Payments \u2014 Evidence \u2014 \u201cSigned, Sealed and Delivered.\u201d\nEvidence that defendant\u2019s intestate, who could neither read nor write, acknowledged the bond sued on as her own and made payments thereon for a long series of years, which were duly entered as credits\" is sufficient to go to the jury as tending to prove that the bond was \u201csigned, sealed and delivered\u201d by the obligor or by her authority.\n(McKee v. Hides, 13 N. C., 379; Kimie v. Broolcs, 31 N. C., 215, cited and distinguished).\nActioN tried before Moore, J., and a jury, at January Term, 1908, of Cabaeiots.\nPlaintiff appealed.\nAdams, Armfield, -Jerome & Maness for plaintiff.\nMontgomery & Growell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 589,
  "last_page_order": 590
}