{
  "id": 11275804,
  "name": "William McFarland v. Nathan Nixon, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "McFarland v. Nixon",
  "decision_date": "1833-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "141",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Dev. 141"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. 141"
    }
  ],
  "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": 186,
    "char_count": 2366,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1227470414910805e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7647499912157041
    },
    "sha256": "99733ce15cd7a7db74dd2fadaefcbee0165b7bb5d369561336e546803df9379d",
    "simhash": "1:bf026df20d2b4175",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:49:44.411836+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William McFarland v. Nathan Nixon, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gaston, Judge.\nAfter stating the case as above, proceeded:\nWe are of opinion that there was no error in the decision of the Judge upon the admissibility of the evidence. By law, justices have jurisdiction of claims due by a signed account, if the amount docs not exceed one hundred dollars ; but their jurisdiction in regard to unsigned accounts is limited to sums not exceeding sixty dollars. The warrant does not indeed in express terms declare that the claim is founded on a signed account, but it avers that it is for \u201c a debt due by account for the amount of seventy-six dollars.\" It must be intended that the plaintiff alleges his claim to be one of which the justice had jurisdiction, and therefore it cannot be otherwise understood than for a debt duo by signed account. The warrant being the plaintiff\u2019s declaration, no evidence could be rightfully received which did not sustain it.\nAs to what is stated in the case about the different motions to amend, of the refusal of the plaintiff to accept the permission to amend on the terms oifered by the judge \u2014and of the judge, after this rejection by the jdaintid) refusing to allow an amendment when prayed for a second time \u2014 it is enough for us to say that upon these and similar questions, the judge below has a sound discretion which this court has not the right to control.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is affirmed.\nPer Curiam \u2014 Judgment aeeirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gaston, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for either party."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William McFarland v. Nathan Nixon, et al.\nAn account offered upon the trial of a warrant, for a sum exceeding sixty dollars, stated to be \u201c due by account,\u201d must be signed.\nThe plaintiff brought his action by warrant, returnable before a single justice, and in the said warrant stated his claim to befor \u201c debtdue by account for the amount of seventy-six dollars.\u201d Having failed to sustain his demand before the magistrate, he appealed to the County Court, where a verdict was rendered against him, and he then appealed to the SuperiorCourt.\nOn the trial before Seaweed, Judge, at Gates on the last Circuit, it was ruled by the Judge that the plaintiff could not give in evidence any account other than a signed account, and judgment of nonsuit was entered. The plaintiff moved to have the nonsuit set aside, and this motion being refused he appealed to this court. Other points were made which it is unnecessary to state.\nNo counsel appeared for either party."
  },
  "file_name": "0141-01",
  "first_page_order": 149,
  "last_page_order": 150
}