{
  "id": 8698844,
  "name": "Cupples, Guardian of Allen, v.-",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cupples v.-",
  "decision_date": "1797-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "525",
  "last_page": "526",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 525"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 525"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2189,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.346,
    "sha256": "d8873c2a35b292b51ef410b2c9f238b7be18005a6d24d358166e514c3396e324",
    "simhash": "1:07d43e93183d3424",
    "word_count": 389
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cupples, Guardian of Allen, v.-."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam\nThere have been so many derisions that a grant, although irregularly obtained, is valid in law, that we think obrselves bound by them at present \u2014 although we cannot subscribe to the reasoning of them, of course it is useless now to consider whether these objections to the verdict are valid or not. However, with respect to costs, it is necessary to say something \u2014 there can be no doubt, but in point of Equity, Mr. Cupples should pay them \u2014 there has been the verdict of a jury against him. and that verdict confirmed by the County Court; upon argument he has caused an abatement of the suit, like that partial abatement which sometimes happens in case of the death, destruction, or ceasing of the principal thing in dispute, so that the court cannot give judgment for it \u2014 as where an action is brought against tenant per autre vie, and cestui qui vie dies, de-mandant, may proceed for damages for detention ; in ejectment for lands leased, if the lease expires before a decision, Plaintiff may proceed for damages and costs.\u2014 Here, before the suit is decided, one of the parties puts an end to it by removing out of the court\u2019s power the thing in controversy. The court cannot give judgment upon the merits of the dispute, or for the principal j but the party may proceed for the accessary. There was judgment for costs.\nNote. \u2014 As to the grant\u2019s being unimpeached at law, see Reynolds v. Flinn, and the note thereto, ante 106.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cupples, Guardian of Allen, v.-.\nIn a caveat, a verdict was found against the Plaintiff, which was confirmed in the County Court, before which time however, tne Plaintiff had obtained a grant from the State for the land ; and now in the Superior Court, it was held, that the grant could not be impeached at law, but as the Defendant appeared to have had the justice of the case on his side, he shall have the costs of the caveat.\nThis was a caveat. Upon the trial, the jury found for the party opposed to Mr. Cupples, which verdict was confirmed by the County Court $ before which time, Mr. Cupples, for his ward, had obtained a .grant from the Secretary's office$ and the verdict and proceedings of the County Court were moved into this court."
  },
  "file_name": "0525-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 532
}