{
  "id": 8686343,
  "name": "HALL, McRAE & CO. vs. ROBERT W. WOODSIDE & AL.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall, McRae & Co. v. Woodside",
  "decision_date": "1847-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "119",
  "last_page": "120",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Ired. 119"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. 119"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Dev. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690825
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683584
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Dev. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690825
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683584
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0003-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34799750873506524
    },
    "sha256": "95d10274b0fd334014e9a0587106124f78258f2f0e1aeba2ca514b39632941c7",
    "simhash": "1:197b84e9c0eac727",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:05.193463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HALL, McRAE & CO. vs. ROBERT W. WOODSIDE & AL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nWhatever error the Judge may have committed in the opinion he expressed as to the insufficiency of the ca. sa. produced in evidence, the Court cannot look into it. Among other defences, the defendant pleaded, tha,t the debt recovered by the plaintiffs was paid; and the jury have found that plea to be true, as well as the others. This finding puts the construction on the ca. sa. out of the question. The cases of Morrisey v. Bunting, 1 Dev. 3, and Bullock v. Bullock, 3 Dev. 260, are direct authorities. And this we must especially hold, because it appears from the case that the debt was, in fact, paid. For the debt and costs amounted to the sum of $209 36, and upon a fi. fa. the sheriff returned the sale of a negro, for $307.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the plaintiffs.",
      "Strange, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HALL, McRAE & CO. vs. ROBERT W. WOODSIDE & AL.\nWhere, on a sci. fa. against ball, the pleas were, no ca. sa. issued, and payment, and the jury found all the issues in favor of the defendant, this Court will not enquire into the correctness of the charge of the Judge as to one of the pleas only, that of the validity of the ca. sa.\nThe cases of Morrisey v. Bunting, 1 Dev. 3, and Bulloch v. Bulloch, 3 Dev. 260, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Brunswick County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.\nThis was a scire facias against the sheriff of Brunswick County, as special bail for one David Treadwell, against whom the plaintiffs had recovered a judgment. The defendants pleaded nul tiel record, payment, statute of limitations, no ca. sa. issued; no ca. sa. returned. Much controversy existed, as to the\u2019 sufficiency of the ca. sa. The presiding Judge charged the jury that the ca. sa. produced was void, as not corresponding with the judgment ; 'whereupon they returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, on all the issues ; and from the judgment the plaintiffs appealed.\nNOTE. \u2014 The eases o\u00ed Patrick Murhiy and Isaac Northrop against the same defendants, depending upon the same principle, were determined in the same way at this Term.\nNo counsel for the plaintiffs.\nStrange, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0119-01",
  "first_page_order": 127,
  "last_page_order": 128
}