{
  "id": 11276432,
  "name": "William Stevens v. Drury Smith",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1833-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Dev. 292"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. 292"
    }
  ],
  "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": 191,
    "char_count": 2713,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.37,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6359337938235009
    },
    "sha256": "8381f9dbea744fb2932ce198dbc47e2854d41a5d072b0a6922c4602fabe6cd5d",
    "simhash": "1:a4a2e6188e9fd29b",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:49:44.411836+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Stevens v. Drury Smith."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gaston, Judge\nafter stating the case, proceeded a's follows:\nThe court is of opinion that the Judge did not err in overruling the objection. There was no alternative but to give to the note the construction which the Judge put upon it, or to consider the most important part of it as Wholly unmeaning. If a sensible meaning could be given to this part of the instrument, it was the duty of the court to assign to it this meaning. The reasons stated by the Judge for the interpretation which he adopted and which reasons we need not repeat are satisfactory. To these however, it may be added that the note by its terms, was made for the payment of money \u2014 that it must be understood, unless otherwise distinctly expressed, to be made for the payment of money, the currency of our country \u2014 that of this currency, by the express enactment of Congress, act of April 2d, 1792, a dollar is the unit\u2022\u2014 that all other coins arc recognized as either multiples or fractional parts of that unit \u2014 that by the act of our State Legislature, 1809, c. 775, the currency of the State is recognized to be that of \u201c dollars and cents,\u201d that is these units and the hundredth parts thereof \u2014 and that this note could not be understood by the parties, by a court or by a jury in any other sense than as stipulating for the payment of four hundred and forty-seven dollars, (or units) and sixty - six cents (or the hundredth parts thereof.) The judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs.\n3?er Curiam \u2014 Judgment aeeirmeb.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gaston, Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holmes and Winston for the plaintiff.",
      "Henry for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Stevens v. Drury Smith.\nWhere the plaintiff declared on a single hill of the defendant for four hun \u00bf\u00a1red and forty-seven dollars and sixty-six cents, and the instrument offered in evid ence corresponded with that set forth, except that it wanted the word \u201cdollars held, that this was no variance, and that the word \u201c dollars\u201d must he supplied by construction.\nDebt on single bill of the defendant, tried at Sampson Spring term, 1833, before Martin, Judge.\nTiie plaintiff declared upon a single bill of the defendant, for \"the payment of the sum of four hundred and forty-seven dollars, sixty-six cents. On exhibition of the instrument offered in evidence, it corresponded in all respects with that set forth in the declaration, except in this \u2014 it promised the payment of four hundred and forty-seven and sixty six cents. The defendant objected that the instrument offered in evidence was different from that alleged in the declaration. The Judge overruled the objection and the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment ior his debt. It is insisted that the objection taken to the evidence was good and the Judge erred in overruling it,\nHolmes and Winston for the plaintiff.\nHenry for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 299,
  "last_page_order": 300
}