{
  "id": 8691457,
  "name": "Hamilton v. Mary Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1794-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "160",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 160"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 160"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11981555,
        11981607,
        11981655
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0328-01",
        "/nc/3/0328-02",
        "/nc/3/0328-03"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 3989,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.289,
    "sha256": "317736ffaf17febedc9d076f0879e12c0dcad923aced5274663ab47b48ee6359",
    "simhash": "1:40d74d1160bbd79a",
    "word_count": 713
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hamilton v. Mary Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Note - Vide acc. Hall v. Bynum, 2 Hay. 328, Johnson v. Knight, 2 Car. 237, S. C. 1 Car. Law Rep. 93. Hall v. Bynum was a case in which the subscibing witness had endorsed to the Plaintiff the bond which had been assigned to him; and in such a case, if the subscribing witness had endorsed without recourse to him and was also relwase by his endorse, the Plaintiff, be would be a competent witness, Sillingby v. Knight, N. C. Term Rep. 103.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hamilton v. Mary Williams.\nMacay Judge inclined \"to think that the hand-writing of a subscribing -witness, who had-voluntarily become interested in the bond could not' be proved. ' Sed adjoumatur.\nDebt upon bond, and non est factum pleaded. The attesting witness was one Gordall Norfleet, and there was an indorsement on the bond, transferring it and its contents to him. The bond itself bore date prior to the time when bonds were first rendered negotiable in this State. It was argued for the Plaintiff, and insisted upon, that the hand writing of Norfleet, the attesting witness, might be proven ; and this was compared to the case in Stra. 34? where the subscribing witness having become the administrator, his hand-writing was admitted to be proven. It was al\u00abo compared to the cases where the witness becomes blind, or is convicted of perjury or forgery, or is made a legatee, or becomes heir. And the evidence in. the present case offered by the Plaintiff was admitted, Judge Macay being on the bench, and a verdict obtained : whereupon, Gen. Dame moved that the verdict might be set aside, the evidence upon which it was grounded, being improper; and be argued that in the case of the executor, administrator or legatee, the law gave them that character, or placed them in that situation, which disabled them to give testimony ; at least they did not acquire such characters or offices by their own independent voluntary act, and in such cases there was no room \u00ed'\u00bb\" \u00a1pro turning any elr.\u2022 \u2022 b.'-\u00ed voni the, ob'igro and C\u00ede yitue-\u00eds: fot t\u00ed se e i'i'.w \u00a1u-e, not \u2019.ike the nreseut. if the evidence 5\u00ed!b'ii\u00ed\u00ed;*fl ,i<\u00a1 \u00a1k'.i c\u00a1rte, i.houh! he allowable, a \"-vide dotv v.-onid be. opeivj for fr-i-id, \u00ed\\s:~3 if would i:r, \u2022 .-i'.*/ be !)U\u00cd in pr.n'.\u00ed irc \u2014 \u00a1he forger of a bond won\u2019fl heve sss\u00edt\u2019t:\u00fc;>; e\u00cdBe fe do. bti! to rudor\u00edie to fiie subscribing v.rr.ess, and \u00a1he! wiine\u00abs to sue \u00edsttti eff-ct \u00edbe. recovery upon proof of bis own hand-writing. Ulsould if he e case of usury or of gaming exuding i\u00bb the knowledge o\u00ed\" the wiiiif-s only, as frequently happens, an indorse-meat iike the pre.-R-n\u00ed. ond the admission o\u00ed* such testimony, would rsTecdcaHy exclude. the troth of the tiyms\u00e1o i ios. \u00a1s\u00a1:(3 make the boot! valid, though in reaii'y it was void hy the ni Sos of law. Should this derision b\u00a1* esta-blislc-d as law. it will immediately become the common pi-aotiee to aSHign a\u00fc such bonds <o- the witness. for the. purpose of procuring :i ful-e validity to them. Tin's case, therefore, is not to be assim dated to the cases cited \u2014 iit those no mischief results fiom the. admission of proof of the wit ness\u2019s hand-wWiing. It is not to be presumed that the witness will undergo a conviction of forgery or \u25a0perjury, or that a testator, intestate or ancestor, will pro-cura the person that is to be his executor, administrator or heir, to witness n forged instrument, or one invalid in other respects, to the end that after the death of himself, a recovery may he c\u00edTroted by proof of their hand writing. There are but few men have attained to such a degree of baseness, as to contrive frauds to be executed after their deaths ; the. uncertainty itself* of the time of death, which is gonera!lyvie\\ve.d as at a distance, is a sufficient guard rgain-\u00a1t any such attempt \u2014 hut in this case, and in ail cases like it, the mischief of such evidence is greatly to be apprehended.\nJudge IvIacay seemed to be. of this opinion, and lie ordered the judgment to be stayed until this question could he argued bef\u00f3te moro Judges; and it was adjourned."
  },
  "file_name": "0160-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 169
}