{
  "id": 11276673,
  "name": "Peter R. Davis et. al. upon the relation of Theophilus Snow v. James Somerville",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis ex rel. Snow v. Somerville",
  "decision_date": "1834-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "382",
  "last_page": "383",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Dev. 382"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. 382"
    }
  ],
  "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": 239,
    "char_count": 3107,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.884283093182263e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4994271866815401
    },
    "sha256": "3e5b05ad920d7aa42423b777094fa0c98ac19d9a2ab34bbe1a1b1976efb195c5",
    "simhash": "1:1efc3ec26e481287",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:49:44.411836+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter R. Davis et. al. upon the relation of Theophilus Snow v. James Somerville."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniee-, Judge.\nThis guardian bond'was taken under and by virtue of the act of 1762, (Beu. c. 69. sec. 7.) whieh directs a guardian bond to be made payable to the \u201cjustices present in Court, the survivor or survivors of them, their executors or administrators.\u201d It has been argued by the plaintiff\u2019s counsel that the justices who were present in Court, (one of whom was the defendant,) when the appointment of the guardian and execution of tfie b6nd took place, were a quasi corporation for that particular purpose, and although the defendant was one of the corporators, yet he in his individual character, might give a bond to the corporation, and it would bind him.\nIn the case of the Justices of Currituck v Dozier, (ante 3. vol. p. 287,) where the case stated that Dozier was both obligor and obligee with others named in the guardian bond, this Court said, \u201ca guardian bond according to the statute is nothing more than a common law bond payable to individuals and their personal representatives, in trust for another, that Dozier was both obligor and obligee, and the bond was void. It seems to us that the aboveinentioned case, and that of The Justices v Bonner, (ante 3 vol.p 289) which is in all things similar, must govern the one now before the Court. \u2014 \u2022 This case comes within the rule laid down by the Court in the cases of The Justices v Shannonhouse, (ante 2 col. p. 6.) and The Justices v Armstrong, (Ib. 3. vol. 284. )\nWe think the judgment must be affirmed.\nTer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment aeeirmeb. \"",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniee-, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. II. Haywood for the plaintiffs.",
      "Badger contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter R. Davis et. al. upon the relation of Theophilus Snow v. James Somerville.\nA guardian bond taken according to the act of 1762 (j?eu. ch. 69. \u00a7 7.) is nothing but a common law bond payable to the individuals on the bench, and if executed by one of them, is void.\nThe cases of the Justices y Dozier, (ante 3. vol. p. 287J the Justices v Somier, (15. 289,) the Justices v Armstrong (Id. 284,) and the Justices v Shannonhouse, (ante 2 vol. p. 6.) approved.\nDebt upon the following bond :\n\u201c Know all men by these presents, that wc R. H. J. \u201c and James Somerville of &c. are held and firmly \u201c bound to Peter R. Davis, Richard Bullock, and James \u201c Somerville, Justices of the Court of Pleas and Quar- \u201c ter Sessions for the county of Warren in the sum of \u201c &c. to be paid to the said Justices or the survivor or \u201c survivors of them, their executors or administrators on trust &c.\u201d with a condition that R, H. J. should well and truly improve the estate of the relator, to whom he had been appointed guardian. On the tidal at Warren on the last circuit, the only question made in the cause arosG upon the plea of non estfactum, and on that it was admitted that the defendant was the same James Somer. \u2022oille who was mentioned in the bond as an obligee, and who was one of the plaintiffs. It was also admitted that the defendant and the other obligees were the Justices jn court at the time the appointment of guardian to the relator was made.\nUpon these facts his Honor, Judge Settee directed a nonsuit to be entered, and the plaintiffs appealed.\nW. II. Haywood for the plaintiffs.\nBadger contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0382-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 392
}