{
  "id": 11275544,
  "name": "Wilson and Connor v. Edmund Jenings",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. Jenings",
  "decision_date": "1833-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "90",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Dev. 90"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. 90"
    }
  ],
  "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": 264,
    "char_count": 4210,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.407,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.078401694762488e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9378141351098076
    },
    "sha256": "0c40c9706fc20f361cc4090f98661403c8a919227c38f7eb324b9495324e5bbf",
    "simhash": "1:727b9d2dd8364dfc",
    "word_count": 728
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:49:44.411836+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wilson and Connor v. Edmund Jenings."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DaNxex, Judge.\nAfter stating the case as above, proceeded:\nBy the act of 1T89, Rev.c. 314, aplaintiffmaybringhis action, either jointly or severally, on the assumptions of partners and others. It is not pretended, that the individual note of Thompson was agreed to be taken by the plaintiffs in discharge of the partnership debt; and a note given even by all the partners would not extinguish the original undertaking to pay for the goods delivered, like a bond or judgment taken for the same. The plaintiffs still might maintain their action for goods sold and delivered, provided they produced and delivered up the note on the trial, or proved it was destroyed. (Farr v. Price, 3 East. 55, Dangerfield v. Willy, 4 Esp. R. 159.) If the defendant had been bound on the note given by Thompson, then the plaintiffs account would have been liquidated, and the sum being under one hundred dollars, it would have been within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. But the individual note of Thompson did not liquidate the plaintiffs account qnoad the defendant: it was still, as to him, an open account; and the letter which he wrote to his partner, did not have the effect of giving the note a more extended operation than it had before ; nor did it liquidate the plaintiff\u2019s claim, even as it related to himself, so as to bring' it within the meaning and operation of the act of assembly, for the plaintiff must still prove on the trial, the delivery of the articles. Although Thompson\u2019s note was given and the defendant\u2019s letter was written before the act of 1828 was passed, bringing liquidated claims under one hundred dollars in amount, within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, still a subsequent act was passed in the year 1829, declaring that the meaning of the words \u201c liquidated accounts,\u201d mentioned in the first act, was to bo confined to signed accounts. The defendant never signed the account, and Thompson\u2019s note still leaves the account open and unliquidated as to the defendant. The action should not have been dismissed.\nPer Curiam \u2014 Judgment keverse\"\u00ed>\u00bb",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DaNxex, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for either party."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wilson and Connor v. Edmund Jenings.\nThe expression \u201c liquidated accounts,\u201d used in the act of 1836, c. 13, as explained by the act of 1839, c. 33, means \u201csigned accounts\u201d \u2014 and therefore, where A. and B. were partners in trade, and A. gave his own - promissory note for a debt of the firm, and B. wrote a letter to A. stating that he would pay the debt to the creditor, it was held, that the account was not thereby liquidated as against B. so as to give exclusive jurisdiction of the demand to a single magistrate, although the note was given, letter written, and action brought before the act of 1839.\nReceiving the promissory note of one partner in payment of an open account against the firm, and delivering up the account in writing, does not of itself discharge the original demand.\nThis was an action of Assumtsit, brought in 1827 for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, in which the plaintiff claimed the sum of eighty dollars and seventy-five cents, and was tried on the plea of non assump-sit, in Mecklenburg Superior Court, before his Honor, Judge Donnei.\nThe defendant and one Thompson were partners in trade, and became indebted as such to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered. Subsequently to the sale Thomson gave his own individual promissory note to the plaintiffs for the price, and oh the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence a letter from the defendant to Thompson, complaining of the manner in which the business of the firm had been transacted, but stating that he would pay < to the plaintiffs eighty dollars when certain moneys should be collected. It appeared that at the time Thomp son\u2019s note was taken, he bad been called on by an agent of the plaintiffs for a settlement of their account \u2014 the account was presented \u2014 its correctness admitted by Thompson, and his note given in payment thereof, and the account given up to him.\nThe presiding Judge being of opinion that the settling of the account by giving the note in payment, was a liquidation thereof within the meaning of the\u2019act of 1826, c. 13, dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appealed.\nNo counsel appeared for either party."
  },
  "file_name": "0090-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 100
}