{
  "id": 8684154,
  "name": "JAMES DICKINSON vs. JOHN B. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickinson v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "47",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 45"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 45"
    }
  ],
  "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": 169,
    "char_count": 2285,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "11051d388e97c6fe0021c970f2e38efb40b115b1df4fd8d7021053c67c54ccad",
    "simhash": "1:0fccc0b853bbeedb",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES DICKINSON vs. JOHN B. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nThe plaintiff had, as a constable, levied on certain articles, as the property of one Briggs. One By-num claimed the articles; and, thereupon, the defendant executed a bond to indemnify the plaintiff for selling under an execution in his hands, \u201c wherein John B. Jones and Henry Dickinson are plaintiffs, and one William G. Briggs is defendant.\u201d The plaintiff sold the property and was sued by Bynum, who recovered six cents, and a large sum for costs. The action is on the bond for indemnity. On' the trial, the plaintiff did not offer in evidence an execution in favor of John B. Jones and Henry Dickinson against William G. Briggs, and, of course, did not prove, that he sold the property under the execution recited in the bond.\nHis Honor was of opinion that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to make this proof, and that he was entitled to recover by proving that he sold the property, without showing that he made the sale \u201c under an execution corresponding with that recited in the bond.\u201d To this the defendant excepts.\nThere is error. The defendant agrees to indemnify the plaintiff for selling under a certain execution. How can the indemnity be claimed without alleging and proving that he did sell under that execution ? Suppose the plaintiff sold under a different execution. It may be that it was not levied in time, or that the defendant had not the same interest in it. At all events, it does not come within the terms of the bond.\nIt is unnecessary to notice the other exception; because upon the next trial, if the plaintiff has in fact paid the amount recovered by Bynum\u00bb he will be able to prove it without depending upon the entry on the execution docket.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mordecai and Washington, for the plaintiff.",
      "J. H. Bryan, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES DICKINSON vs. JOHN B. JONES.\nA bond was given to an officer, to indemnify him for selling under an execution at the instance of il J. and H. against W\u201d Held, that to entitle the officer to recover on this bond, he must show that he sold under the execution mentioned in the bond.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wayne County, at the Fall \u25a0 Term, 1850, his Honor Judge Ellis' presi-' ding.\nThe case is stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.\nMordecai and Washington, for the plaintiff.\nJ. H. Bryan, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 55
}