{
  "id": 8698751,
  "name": "Hughes's Administrators v. Stokes's Administrators",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hughes's Administrators v. Stokes's Administrators",
  "decision_date": "1796-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "427",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 427"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 427"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 Johns. Rep. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1635,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.331,
    "sha256": "21dfb15ce448d1c04b875adc484ffdf26c58a36063a929e325868c9f85d16d71",
    "simhash": "1:ce5737e93092b9d4",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hughes\u2019s Administrators v. Stokes\u2019s Administrators."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam\nThe wife in the present case, acted as the ag\u00ed nt or servant of the husband, and received his monies. The business was carried on by her, and her declarations should be admitted to discharge^Stokes. upon the same principle it was admitted in the case cited from Strimge. The evidence was received;\nNote. \u2014 Vide Emmerson v. Blonden, 1 Esp. Reports 142. Fenner v. Lewis, 10 Johns. Rep. 38, cited in 2d Am. Edit. 2d Vol. Phil. on Evid. 221.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SALISBURY,\nSEPTEMBER TERM, 1796.\nHughes\u2019s Administrators v. Stokes\u2019s Administrators.\nWhere the wife \".cts ;is agent or servant of the husband, her admissions against his interest are admissible.\nAssumpsit for hoard and lodging of the intestate. It was proved, that be had boarded with Hughes from August 1785, to May 1788 ; at which time Hughes became insane and incapable of managing bis affairs. The keeping of tin* tavern and tavern books was however continued by Mrs. Hughes and in her name, and Stokes continued to board there till after May, 1788. On the pan of the Defendant if was offered in evidence, that Mrs. Hughes had acknowledged these accounts to have been discharged or nearly so, It was objected, that the wife shall not be a witness for or against her husband, and that her declarations against her husband\u2019 sinteresf cannot be received. To this rule there had been but one exception, and that was in a case, where a wife had hired a nurse for her child, and agreed to pay so much per week \u2014 this was a!lowed to be given in evidence to charge the husband, be-ealise it was the proper business of the wife to make such kind of contracts for the husband. . Strange 527."
  },
  "file_name": "0427-02",
  "first_page_order": 434,
  "last_page_order": 435
}