{
  "id": 11254724,
  "name": "J. S. MOON et al. v. SAMUEL W. SIMPSON and FAUQUIER NATIONAL BANK, Intervenor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moon v. Simpson",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "576",
  "last_page": "577",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 576"
    }
  ],
  "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": "170 N. C., 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659053
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0335-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30090151974111234
    },
    "sha256": "ade88f5f16824bd30be283f8ea4ee07cd352f778497ce5e3337af8db200fc1f9",
    "simhash": "1:e917b640a562df14",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. S. MOON et al. v. SAMUEL W. SIMPSON and FAUQUIER NATIONAL BANK, Intervenor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTbis case was before us at Fall Term, 1915, 170 N. C., 335, and is referred to for a statement of tbe controversy. Tbe motion to nonsuit tbe intervenor was properly overruled, as tbe bank bad. introduced tbe draft and proved tbe indorsement, thereby making out a prima facie case that entitled it to go to tbe jury. Moon v. Simpson, supra; Worth Co. v. Feed Co., ante, 335.\nTbe law applicable to tbis case is clearly stated by Mr. Justice' Allen in tbe opinions in those two cases, and need not be repeated here. . Tbe assignments of error relating to tbe evidence are without merit, and need not be discussed.\nIn our view bis Honor in tbe charge gave plaintiffs more than they were entitled to when be submitted tbe controversy to tbe jury as an open question as to whether intervenor\u2019s title was defective. As in tbe Worth Go. case, there is neither allegation nor proof that tbe title of tbe intervenor, which negotiated tbe draft, is defective within tbe meaning of tbe statute. Eevisal, 2204.\nThere is no evidence that tbe intervenor held tbe draft for- collection or that tbe proceeds were tbe property of Simpson, tbe indorser. On the contrary, all tbe evidence tends to prove that tbe intervenor purchased tbe draft and placed tbe proceeds to Simpson\u2019s credit, who at once drew them out.\nTbe court might well have instructed tbe jury that if they believed tbe evidence tbe indorsement was properly proved, and there being no allegation or evidence of any defect in intervenor\u2019s title, it was entitled to recover.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brooks, Sapp & Williams for plaintiffs.",
      "King & Kimball for intervenor."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. S. MOON et al. v. SAMUEL W. SIMPSON and FAUQUIER NATIONAL BANK, Intervenor.\n(Filed 22 November, 1916.)\n1. Bills and. Jiotes \u2014 Negotiable Instruments \u2014 Indorsement\u2014Presumptive Evidence \u2014 Trials\u2014Questions for Jury.\nWhere the holder of a negotiable draft introduces it in evidence and proves the indorsement to him, he makes out a prima facie case, which entitles him to go to the jury in his action thereon.\n2. Same \u2014 Banks and Banking \u2014 Purchaser for Talne.\nA bank intervened in attachment proceedings and claimed a draft, the subject thereof,-as a holder in due course by indorsement from the defendant, its depositor; and there being no evidence that the intervenor held the draft for collection, or that the proceeds .were the property of the defendant, but that he indorsed it to the bank, and received the money thereon, it is -Held, that there is no- evidence of a defect in intervenor\u2019s title thereto. Revisal, 2204.\nCivil actioN tried at May Term, 19\u00cd6, of G-uilfoRD, before Gime, J.,' upon this issue:\nIs tbe Fauquier National Bank of \"Warrenton, Va., intervenor, tbe owner of tbe money attached in tbis proceeding? Answer; \u2018\u2018Yes.\u201d\nFrom tbe judgment rendered, plaintiffs appeal.\nBrooks, Sapp & Williams for plaintiffs.\nKing & Kimball for intervenor."
  },
  "file_name": "0576-01",
  "first_page_order": 642,
  "last_page_order": 643
}