{
  "id": 8684676,
  "name": "WILLIAM JONES, Chairman, &c. v. WILLIAM MONTFORT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Montfort",
  "decision_date": "1838-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "74",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. & Bat. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. 73"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Dev. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683996
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0052-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 2962,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1329240581850794e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5765606411802386
    },
    "sha256": "eb9a0f356b36a8c97e3ea95ed955a669cd18414e9f81b82e4fe3ae4d690d0e56",
    "simhash": "1:0dad0d63ee494851",
    "word_count": 529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:24.594429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM JONES, Chairman, &c. v. WILLIAM MONTFORT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gaston, Judge.\nThe condition of the bond declared on in this case corresponds precisely with that which was under the consideration of the Court in the case of the Governor v. Matlock, (1 Dev. 213.) It there received a judicial construction by which it was held not to extend to the fiscal duties of the office. The decision then made was in conformity to the principle before established in the cases of Grumpier v. the Governor, 1 Dev. 52, and the Governor v. Barr, 1 Dev. 65, that the general words in the conclusion of the condition shall be restricted by the preceding particular words, to duties of a like kind with those specified. To hold any other doctrine now, and to put a different construction on the words in the condition of this bond from that so authoritatively assigned to the same words heretofore, would be to fly in the face of former adjudications, and to introduce the most perplexing confusion.\nThe instruction of the Judge to the jury was in conformity to the settled law of the country, and the rejection of the offered evidence to explain the bond was unquestionably correct.\nThe judgment must be affirmed.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gaston, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "f\u00eda(iger for plaintiff.",
      "J. H. Bryan for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM JONES, Chairman, &c. v. WILLIAM MONTFORT et al.\nA bond given by a sheriff; with a condition to return process and pay over monies &c., \u201c and in all things well &c. to execute the said office,\u201d is not broken by a neglect to collect and pay the parish taxes.\nThe cases of Crumpler v. the Governor, 1 Dev. 52, and of the Governor v. Mat-lock, ib. 214 approved.\nDebt upon a bond executed by the defendants as the surities of Boyd Fonville, for the faithful discharge of his duties as sheriff of Onslow. The breach assigned was that Fonville had not paid over to the wardens of the poor the parish taxes for the year 1831.\nUpon oyer the condition of the bond declared on was as follows:\n\u201cThe condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the above bounded B. F. hath been constituted and appointed sheriff, &c. Now in case the said B. F. shall well and truly execute and due return make of all process and precepts to him directed, and pay satisfy all fees and sums of money by him received or levied by virtue of any process, into the proper office to which the same by the tenor thereof ought to be paid, or to the persons to whom the same shall be due,his heirs, &c. and in all other things well, truly and faithfully execute the said office of sheriff, during his continuance therein, then &c. Pleas \u2014 Performance and non infregerunt conventionem.\nOn the trial before Nash, Judge, on the Spring Circuit of 1837., his Honor ruled the default assigned as a breach, was not within the condition, and thereupon the plaintiff offered to prove by parol that the parish taxes were intended to be secured by the bond declared on. His Honor rejected this testimony, and the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and appealed.\nJune, 1838.\nf\u00eda(iger for plaintiff.\nJ. H. Bryan for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 79,
  "last_page_order": 80
}