{
  "id": 8689383,
  "name": "JOSEPH PONDER vs. JAMES CARTER, ADM'R",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ponder v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1851-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "242",
  "last_page": "243",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 242"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 242"
    }
  ],
  "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. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276616
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/15/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dev. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276616
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/15/0360-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2880,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9147545814457625e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7321760843971985
    },
    "sha256": "5ab1623bdcdc2f7f3386f29761292341dbf6b31d08ad59cf2841f6780a40b0f3",
    "simhash": "1:68e0e92921ccb4a2",
    "word_count": 524
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH PONDER vs. JAMES CARTER, ADM\u2019R."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nThe only question presented to the Court is, as to the operation of the statute of limitations. Ponder, the plaintiff, was indebted to one Anderson, and, in order to discharge the debt, sold property to the intestate, Carter- ; and it was agreed betweeii them, that the purchase money should be paid to Anderson in discharge of his debt on Ponder, which was reduced to writing and signed by the intestate. In 1843, Anderson demanded payment of Carter, who refused to make it; and, subsequently, the plaintiff was compelled to pay it. This payment was made within three years before the bringing of the action. \u2022 On behalf of the defendant it was contended, that the plaintiff\u2019s action was barred by the Statute of limitations, which began to run, either from the time he signed the instrument, or from the demand by Anderson. Neither proposition is correct. The arrangement between Ponder and Carter was of a nature not to discharge the former from the claim of Anderson \u2014 he was left still liable to pay it, and, under\" this liability, the debt was recovered of him and he did pay it. From the latter period, the statute began to run. After the arrangement between Ponder and Carter, the latter, as between themselves, became the principal-in the debt to Anderson, and the former stood in the relation of surety; and it is settled by many adjudications, that a surety has no claim upon his principal, until he has paid the money, for which he is bound. It is the payment of the money, which gives his action, and not his liability in law to do so. The statute begins to run only from the time when the cause of action accrued. Sherrod v, Norwood, 4 Dev. 360, Brissentine v. Martin 1 Ire. 286, Noland v. Martin, 1 Ire. 307.\nWe concur in the opinion of his Honor. There is no error; and the judgment is affirmed.\nPer Curiam. Judgment confirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Woodjin, for the plaintiff.",
      "N. W. Woodjin and Gaither, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH PONDER vs. JAMES CARTER, ADM\u2019R.\nA surety has no claim upon his principal, until he has paid the money for which he was bound.\nWhen A. was indebted to B., and C., for a fair consideration, agreed in writing to pay the debt to B., and afterwards, upon demand from B., .refused to do bo; and A. subsequently was compelled to pay the debt; Held, that, as between A. and C., A. was to be considered as surety and C. as principal, and that the statute oflimitatious began to run against A.\u2019s claim on C., not Rom the date of the agreement or of C.\u2019s refusal to pay B., but only from the the time when A. actually paid the money.\nThe cases of Sherrod v. Williams, 4 Dev. 360, Brissentine v. Martin, 1 Ire. \u2022 286 and Noland v. Martin, 2 Ire, 307, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law for Yancy County, Special Term, July 1850, his Honor Judge Battle, presiding.\nThe facts of the case will be found in the opinion of the Court.\nJ. W. Woodjin, for the plaintiff.\nN. W. Woodjin and Gaither, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0242-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}