{
  "id": 2217850,
  "name": "FOREST CITY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. W. J. DAVIS and MASSACHUSETTS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Forest City Building & Loan Ass'n v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1927-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "710",
  "last_page": "711",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 710"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0108-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2450,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1909399985941632e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5913991510701976
    },
    "sha256": "272297fdc34526649b381f4845eee305642ac41bd70c533a0b3dbf33d772f312",
    "simhash": "1:695cb1ae2672b528",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FOREST CITY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. W. J. DAVIS and MASSACHUSETTS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Connor, J.\nThe above-entitled action was tried at October Special Term, 1925, of the Superior Court of Rutherford County.\nProm judgment rendered upon the verdict, both defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. This appeal was heard at Spring Term, 1926. Defendants\u2019 assignments of error were not sustained. The judgment recovered by plaintiff against both defendants was affirmed. 192 N. C., 108.\nPetitioner, Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, now contends that this Court failed to consider and pass upon the assignment of error based upon defendants\u2019 exception to the judgment. It contends that there was error in the form of the judgment, in that it does not appear therein that judgment was rendered against it as surety for its codefendant, W. J. Davis. It appears from the petition to rehear that the petitioner has paid the judgment rendered against it. It now asks that the judgment be modified to the end that it may have judgment against defendant W. J. Davis, principal, for the amount so paid.\n'Whether, upon the record, such modification is necessary, in order that petitioner may have the relief to which it is entitled as surety need not be discussed. Petitioner is clearly entitled to judgment against its codefendant, W. J. Davis, as principal for the amount which plaintiff has recovered against it as surety on his bond. It is ordered that the judgment be modified in accordance with the prayer of petitioner.\nThe judgment, as thus modified, is affirmed.\nPetition allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Connor, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Flowers & Boyd for petitioner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FOREST CITY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. W. J. DAVIS and MASSACHUSETTS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 11 May, 1927.)\n1. Judgments \u2014 Principal and Surety \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nThe surety on a bond has the right to judgment against the principal thereon as the one primarily liable, and a judgment against him alone in plaintiff\u2019s favor is erroneous.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Rehearing\u2014Judgments\u2014Principal and Surety.\nWhere it is made to appear that the surety on a bond has not been given a judgment against its principal, and it is necessary for the protection of its legal rights, and upon his exception duly entered the Supreme Court on appeal has inadvertently omitted to pass on this exception, his petition to rehear upon this point will be granted and the proper relief afforded.\nPetition of Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company to rehear the appeal in the above-entitled action.\nPetition allowed.\nFlowers & Boyd for petitioner."
  },
  "file_name": "0710-01",
  "first_page_order": 788,
  "last_page_order": 789
}