{
  "id": 8690944,
  "name": "CHARLES G. HAUGHTON & AL. vs. WILLIAM H. BAYLEY & AL.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haughton v. Bayley",
  "decision_date": "1849-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "9 Ired. 337"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. 337"
    }
  ],
  "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": 239,
    "char_count": 3225,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.405,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.497341544922816e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39987099633994105
    },
    "sha256": "b7efe3aa19ef0a66979a7ab367dcc57077f73700eb315a421637d212612d2964",
    "simhash": "1:8c814c22e278e463",
    "word_count": 579
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:40.677102+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES G. HAUGHTON & AL. vs. WILLIAM H. BAYLEY & AL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nWe think the. view taken of the ease, in the Court below, was wrong. As the goods were the individual effects of the plaintiffs, and were delivered by each in separate parcels, the regular way was for each to take a bond payable to himself, and, if no bond had been taken, they would have been compelled to bring separate actions; but the parties saw fit to cover the whole transaction by one bond, and there can be no good reason why an aetion may not be maintained upon it. The object of the evidence was to show what goods Bay-ley had received of the plaintiffs on that day, and for which it was intended the bond should be a security.\nIf the plaintiffs had been partners and had jointly delivered a parcel of goods to Bayley, the bond would most fitly have applied to them, to the exclusion of individual goods separately delivered by each. But there was no copartnership, and the question is, whether the bond be wholly inoperative, as having no subject to apply to ; or whether it be applicable to goods separately delivered by the plaintiffs to Bayley on that day. Clearly it was the intention of the parties, that the bond should apply to these goods, as there are no others to fit' the description more nearly, and these goods fall under the general words of \u201ca stock of goods to peddle with, received by Bayley of Charles G. Haughton and Joseph G. Godfrey, on the day the bond was given.\u201d\nThe non-suit must be set aside and a venire de novo issued.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Biggs, for the plaintiffs."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES G. HAUGHTON & AL. vs. WILLIAM H. BAYLEY & AL.\nWhere two persous, each out of his own stock, delivered goods to a third person to be peddled, and took a bond payable to themselves jointly for the faithful accounting therefor 5 Held, that they could recover upon a bond so taken, notwithstanding each had a separate individual interest.\nAppeal from tbe Superior Court of Law of Bertie Comity, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge Manlx presiding.\nThis was debt upon a bond, executed by the defendants?, for the sum of five hundred dollars, and payable to the plaintiffs, dated 30th of November, 1847, with a condition,, that \u201cWilliam H. Bayley, having this day received of Charles G. Haughton and Joseph G. Godfrey a stock of goods, to peddle with ; now, if the said Bailey shall well and truly pay unto Charles G, Haughton and Joseph G. Godfrey the just and full amount of the stock of goods 014, the 1st day of April next, then the above obligation to be void,\u201d &c.\nThe breach was a failure to pay for the goods. Pleas, condition performed and no breach. The plaintiffs of* fered to prove, that each of them owned a store in the County of Bertie, the one about six miles from the other: That each, from his individual effects, in which the other\u2019 was admitted to be in no way interested, furnished to the defendan t Bayley a parcel of goods, on the day the bond was executed, for which the said Bayley was to account, and pay them respectively; and that Bayley had com* menced peddling, and disposed of the goods, and failed t\u00a9 account and pay over.\nHis Honor \u201cdeemed the evidence inadmissible.\u201d The plaintiffs submitted to a non-suit, and appealed.\nBiggs, for the plaintiffs.\nNo counsel for the defendants!"
  },
  "file_name": "0337-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 368
}