{
  "id": 8683544,
  "name": "CHARLES WASHING vs. EDMUND WRIGHT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Washing v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1847-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Ired. 1"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "7 Ired. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688861
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/29/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ired. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 3306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0326393611922346e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5484881551009344
    },
    "sha256": "32fc164c29a368cd28464169443259de89c90972fb5b08960c235a1d49eaf717",
    "simhash": "1:8a12c40e26345521",
    "word_count": 571
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:05.193463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES WASHING vs. EDMUND WRIGHT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, J.\nWe are of opinion, that the two cases, cited by the' plaintiff\u2019s counsel, show, that the decision of the Judge was right. Blackett v. Weir (11 Eng, C. L. 257,) establishes, that, where in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, to which the general issue was pleaded, a witness, called by the plaintiff to prove the defendant\u2019s liability, admitted on the voir dire, that he (the witness) was jointly liable as a partner, this did not render him incompetent; for, if the plaintiff recovered, the defendant would have contribution, and, if he failed, he might sue the witness for the whole,, and the latter may then claim contribution from the defendant. Bayley, J. said, \u201c the only difficulty arises from his proving a partnership with the defendantbut his (the witness\u2019) testimony would not prove that, in any other action. In Cummins v. Coffin, 7 Ired. 176, it was held, that, in an action against two partners, the plaintiff may introduce the testimony of a third partner, not a party to the record, though he could not be compelled to give his testimony.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. Moore, for the plaintiff,",
      "No counsel appeared in this Court for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES WASHING vs. EDMUND WRIGHT.\nThe testimony of a partner, nota party to tile record, may be introduced by the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was a member of the firm and that goods were delivered to them by the plaintiff.\nThe case of Cummins v. Coffin, 7 Ired. 196, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Chowan County, at the Fall Term, 1848, his Honor Judge Dioic presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, in which the only question was, whether one Jones, who was offered as a witness for the plaintiff, was competent. Jones was offered as a witness to prove the sale and delivery of the goods. The defendant objected that he was interested and introduced one McCoy to prove his interest. McCoy stated the goods were ordered for him and the witness, they having agreed to go into business as copartners; but before their arrival, they dissolved, and the goods were not received by thenu The witness, Jones, was then introduced, under the directions of the Judge, whereupon the defendant insisted on examining him, as to his interest, which the Judge permitted, and, on the examination of the witness, he stated the ordering of the goods, as aforesaid, the failure of himself and McCoy to go into business: that thereafter, he and the defendant entered into copartnership, and purchased the goods of the plaintiff, and received them. The witness stated he had paid for half of the goods, and did not consider himself further liable, though he had no discharge. There was no other evidence of the copartnership, nor of the purchase, than that derived from this witness. The defendant moved to exclude the witness for interest. This was refused by the Judge. The witness was introduced in chief, proved the sale and delivery of the goods to the defendant and the witness, and the copartnership of the witness and the defendant: thereupon a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. A rule for a new trial was had and discharged \u2014and a judgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appealed.\nA. Moore, for the plaintiff,\ncited the cases of Blackett v.\nWeir, 11 Eng. C. L. R. 257, and Cummins v. Coffin, 7 Ired. 19S.\nNo counsel appeared in this Court for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 9,
  "last_page_order": 11
}