{
  "id": 8684083,
  "name": "JAMES J. McCASTEN & AL. vs. MARTIN QUINN'S ADM'OR",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCasten v. Quinn's Adm'or",
  "decision_date": "1843-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "43",
  "last_page": "45",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Ired. 43"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. 43"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4226,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "sha256": "a32e6ccb03f39ae8e7c453de0f87ef7b5060c770c698a5243dbee503d7308fd2",
    "simhash": "1:9c82d7ba5547fb4e",
    "word_count": 740
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:59.151638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES J. McCASTEN & AL. vs. MARTIN QUINN\u2019S ADM\u2019OR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, J.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 declaration is in assump-sit, on two promissory notes. Plea, non assumpsit. The plaintiffs offered in evidence two notes signed by the defendant\u2019s intestate. The jury assessed the plaintiffs\u2019 damages to ,$107' 74, of which $98 15, was principal money, and-they further found, that on the day the writ was issued the principal money due on both of these notes was $98 15, and $5 06 interest. Whereupon, on motion, the court ordered the plaintiffs to be nonsuited, and they appealed.\nThe Superior Court has jurisdiction of all sums of one hundred dollars and upwards due by bond, promissory note, .or liquidated account signed by the party to be charged thereby. Rev. Stat. ch. 31, s. 40. And if any suit shall be commenced in any of the said courts (County or Superior) for any sum of less value than one hundred dollars due by bond, promissory note, or liquidated account signed by the party tojbe charged therewith, the same shall be dismissed by the court. Ibid. sec. 41. And, in a suit commenced in the Superior Court, if by the verdict of a jury it shall be ascertained, that a less sum is due lo the plaintiff in principal and interest, than, by the provisions of the said 40th section, the said Superior Court has jurisdiction of, the court shall nonsuit the plaintiff. Ibid. sec. 42. It appeared by the finding of the jury in this case, that the sum due to the plaintiffs on the two notes for principal and interest, at the date of the writ, was \u00a7 103 21. It seems to us that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, and that the judgment of nonsuit was erroneous. It the damages stated in the count would cover them, any number of notes in the same right might have been consolidated and given in evidence, provided the principal and interest due on them amounted to glOO or upwards. It has been suggested to us that probably the word \u201c balance,\u201d in the third line of the fortieth section, might have a bearing on the case. But that word when read with its context and with the three last lines in the section, xvill be perceived to have no governing control on suits in the Superior Courts on money \u25a0notes, of the description of those sued on in this action. We do not doubt that a magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction in the case. The non-suit must be set aside and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs on the verdict.\nPer Curiam, Non-suit set aside and judgment for the plaintiffs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "I. G, Bynum and J. H. Bryan for the plaintiffs.",
      "Hoke for the defendant/"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES J. McCASTEN & AL. vs. MARTIN QUINN\u2019S ADM\u2019OR.\nThe Superior Court has jurisdiction of an action, founded on two notes, neither of which amounts to one hundred dollars, but which together/including principal and interest, amount to one hundred dollars or more..\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of. Cleaveland County, at Fall Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Superior Court of Law of Cleaveland county, on two promissory-notes ; the first for the sum of sixty-one-dollars and forty* three cents, due the 21st of November, 1841, with a payment endorsed of forty dollars on the 12th of July, 1842; the second for seventy-three dollars and eighty-seven cents, due the 16th of June, 1842. The defendant\u2019s counsel moved to nonsuit the plaintiff, because neither of the notes amounted to the sum of one hundred dollars, and contended that the plaintiff could not bring a suit on two notes, each of which was under one hundred dollars. The court overruled this motion, and submitted the case to the jury with instructions to find how much was due for principal money bow much for interest at the date of the writ, to wit, ^ -*-st -^-Pr^> 1843, and that they should calculate interest at the rate of seven per cent, as the notes were executed and payable in South Carolina. \u25a0 The jury, under the direction of the court, found that on the 1st day of April, 1843, there was due on both notes, after deducting the payment endorsed, the sum of ninety-eight dollars and fifteen cents principal money, and five dollars and six cents for interest. Upon the finding of the jury, the court ordered the plaintiffs to be nonsuited, from which judgment they appealed to the Supreme Court.\nI. G, Bynum and J. H. Bryan for the plaintiffs.\nHoke for the defendant/"
  },
  "file_name": "0043-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 45
}