{ "id": 11275821, "name": "COOK AND TAYLOR vs. JOHN A. ARTHUR", "name_abbreviation": "Cook v. Arthur", "decision_date": "1850-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "407", "last_page": "409", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "11 Ired. 407" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "33 N.C. 407" } ], "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": "4 Dev. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev.", "case_ids": [ 11276638 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Dev. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev.", "case_ids": [ 11276638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0367-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 285, "char_count": 4275, "ocr_confidence": 0.464, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1850200046748689e-07, "percentile": 0.5896818694835104 }, "sha256": "886c26d2847d212bb50fefd16843ca68ff6c70e48b8c5545409e42346e35ab2f", "simhash": "1:fdd675a39c585f4e", "word_count": 746 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:04.070595+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "COOK AND TAYLOR vs. JOHN A. ARTHUR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ruffin, C. J.\nThe judgment must be affirmed. The covenant was not negotiable, and the assignment enr\u2019-i have no effect on the legal right to sue on it, if it had been so intended. But there was no such intention.\u2014 The purpose was merely to make Freeman and Houston, the agents of Cook and Taylor, so that they might accept the staves on behalf of the owners. Nor, does the attachment help the defendant. The garnishment stated an in-' debtedness to Taylor, the sole defendant in the attachment,'on an obligation to deliver staves to Taylor \u2014 being a different instrument from that to Cook & Taylor, now sued on. The difference is not formal merely, but essential to the rights of the parties, as the liability of the garnishee depended on it; since the effects of a firm are not subject to attachment for the separate debt of one of the parties. Jarvis v. Hyer, 4 Dev. 367.\nP\u00bfr Curiam. Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ruffin, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "No counsel for the plaintiffs.", "Donnell and Rodman, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "COOK AND TAYLOR vs. JOHN A. ARTHUR.\nThe assignment of a covenant foy the delivery of staves does not, at law transfer the interest in the covenant, \\\nWhere in a suit by A. and B., copartners, against C , he pleaded, that in his garnishment on.an attachment against A., one of the present plaintiffs, ho had admitted that he owed A. the sum for which he is now sued, and ha had paid the judgment rendered against him on the garnishment, Held, that this plea did not avail him, for he had confessed a debt due to A. alone, being different from that to A. and B. now sued- on.\nThe effects of a firm are not subject to attachment for the separate debt oft one of the partners.\nThe case of Jarvis v. Hyer, 4 Dev. 367, cited, and approved,.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Beaufort;. County, at the Spring Term 185.0,. his. Honor Judge Bai-* ley presiding.\nThe action was brought in May L84S, and is covenant.\u00bb on an agreement under seal,'dated J.une 7.th, 1S45, where?* by the defendant obliged himself to deliver in Beaufort \u25a0 County, 5.0,000 red oak hogshead staves, on. or before the. 1st of December 1845, to. the plaintiffs, Cooke ds, Taylor - who were partners, and merchants in New York. The \u2022 defendant pleaded covenants performed, and a foreign at- - tachment in the Superior Court of Beaufort, commenced \u2022 on the 14th of April 1S46, by Yannostrick & CogdelV against the estate of John Moore Taylor, one of the pre- \u2022 sent plaintiffs, on the bill of exchange for $>1100, in which \u25a0 the defendant was summoned as a garnishee, and upon - his garnishment, in April 1846, confessed (amongst other \u2022 things) that in June 1845, he gave to said Taylor his ob?. \u25a0 ligation to deliver to him 50,000 red oak hogshead staves, and stated that he had delivered 26,713 of them, and that the remaining 23,227 had not been delivered, but remained due to the said Taylor; and that, before the present suit was brought, judgment w,as rendered in the'attachment against Taylor, and the value of the 23,227 staves was condemned in the hands of the defendant, and by him paid in part satisfaction of the recovery against Taylor.\nOn the trial, the defendant gave evidence, that, in a few days after the execution of the covenant, Taylor, in the name of Cook and Taylor, made an endorsement thereon in writing in these words, \u201cDeliver the within to Messrs. Freeman & Houston f but the witness stated further, that Freeman and Houston had no interest in the trails* action, and that the order was given to them to enable them to receive the staves for Cook & Taylor, and that, under it, they did receive nearly 27000 between December 1845, and May 1846, for them. The defendant also gave in evidence the record of the attachment pleaded by him; and the garnishment and judgments therein appeared to be as pleaded. And thereupon the defendant moved the Court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff '\u2019could not recover; first, because they had extinguished their right by the transfer to Freeman and Houston ; and, secondly, because the proceedings in the attachment were a bar to this action. The Court refused to give either instruction, and told the jury the plaintiffs were entitled to damages to the value of the staves not delivered.\u2014 The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, and the defendant appealed.\nNo counsel for the plaintiffs.\nDonnell and Rodman, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0407-01", "first_page_order": 427, "last_page_order": 429 }