{
  "id": 6755394,
  "name": "EASON and WIFE against WESTBROOK and GARLAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eason v. Westbrook",
  "decision_date": "1818-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "267",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Taylor 267"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. 267"
    }
  ],
  "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": 280,
    "char_count": 3728,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "4057635a64ee330f372724a4c8754f8b66920b317ecba4a6d2c21719b790a33a",
    "simhash": "1:c9b0ba4f79a36524",
    "word_count": 682
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:33.045765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EASON and WIFE against WESTBROOK and GARLAND."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ham., J.\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIt is said in Fitzherbert's N. B. 116, K. that a writ of conspiracy for indicting for felony doth not lie but against two persons \u215b\u215b the feast, and that both or neither must be found guiltyf but a writ of conspiracy for indicting one of trespass or other falsity lieth against one person only.\nAnd it appears from many adjudged cases that an action on the case in the nature of a conspiracy will lie against one, or if brought against many all may be acquitted but one, so that it is no good objection to this action that one has been acquitted and the. other found guilty\n^ *s sa\u2019^ \u2018n Chitty\u2019s Pleadings, if several persons be. made Defendants, jointly, where the\" tort in point of law could not be joint, they may demur, and if a verdict bo taken against all, the judgment may be arrested, or reversed On writ of error.\u2014In this case, the declaration charges both Defendants with that of which one only can. be guilty, viz. that the land was not advertised in the most public place in the county for forty days. This is a charge that can only be made against the sheriff, whose official duty it was so to advertise it, and in case a ver-, diet had been taken against both, advantage might be taken of it in either of the ways pointed out: but a verdict has been taken against the sheriff only and the other acquitted, which does away the objection. Ibid, -as in an action against husband and wife for that they Spoke of the Plaintiff certain scandalous words, the Jury found the husband guilty, and the wife not guilty, the Plaintiff shall have judgment; for tho\u2019 the action ought not to be against both, and therefore if the Defendant had demurred to the declaration, it would have been bad, yet the verdict hath cured this error. Indeed if the Tury, in , \u2022. T j j \u25a0> the preseht case, had found both Defendants guilty, the Plaintiff might have entered a nolle prosequi 'against Garland and taken judgment against the qther. whether ... pi ' i ' \" \u2018tr the charge of the court was right or not\u00bb Westbrook has no right to complain\u2014if wrong, it was only so as to Garland, who has now no r\u201ee\u00e1son to complain, as the Jury have acquitted him. I think a new trial ought riot to be granted.-\n1 Saun. 230 note 4.\nVol 1st. p 74.\n1 Roll. abr. 781. Str. 349. 2 Saun. 117, note 2.\n1 Wils 306, 1 Saun 207, n 2.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ham., J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gaston, for the Defendant,",
      "Mordecc\u00f1 for Plaintiff,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EASON and WIFE against WESTBROOK and GARLAND.\nThis is an action brought to recover damages on \u25a0 \u25a0 count of an alleged fraud in the sale of 57 acres of land, by Westbrook, who was sheriff of the county, and Garland, who was the purchaser.\u2014The declaration charges that , ' , ' , . i . .... , ,. , . the sale was not advertised in the most public place in the county forty days, and that the Defendants by spiring, &c. caused the land to be sold at a sum for less than its value.\n, On the trial the Defendant, Garland, was found not guilty, and Westbrook was found guilty. A new trial was motfed for by Defendant, for misdirection of the Judge, who in his charge told the Jury, that ifit appeared to their satisfaction that the sheriff, Westbrook, who sold the land in virtue of an execution, had not advertised the same for forty days, that irregularity alone, akho\u2019 not the result of combination with any person or design to injure' the Plaintiffs, would nevertheless render him liable to them. \u25a0 ,\nan action in the nature of a writ of against two persons, and one be ac-found guilty,' thaUbfeo. tered up against that acquittal of* t.he otlier ground for a \u201dew tna!i the judg. mellt*\nGaston, for the Defendant,\ncited the following author}-\u215b*65> 6 East,422.\u20141 Ghitty, 255.\u2014C. Litt, 282. $.-~Chittyt 194, 73, 74. . *\nMordecc\u00f1 for Plaintiff,\nrelied upon 1 Sanders, 230,\u2014 1 Fd~ Raym, 378."
  },
  "file_name": "0267-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 267
}