{
  "id": 11275757,
  "name": "ELI W. MOORE & CO. vs. NATHAN THOMSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eli W. Moore & Co. v. Thomson",
  "decision_date": "1853-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Busb. 221"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 N.C. 221"
    }
  ],
  "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": 293,
    "char_count": 4104,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.87480142870913e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41842342931962445
    },
    "sha256": "31444937d9828f95d3dc8e6d74d2afbbf7b75b4dd2a81706cf7d11c6f0582110",
    "simhash": "1:289bc073d2d43dcc",
    "word_count": 732
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:02.564304+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELI W. MOORE & CO. vs. NATHAN THOMSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaRSon, J.\nThe plea is not liable to the objection of being argumentative. It is prolix and sets out irrelevant matter ; but this is a mere form, and is not assigned as cause of demurrer.\nThe part of the plea which we suppose was intended to raise the objection that the names of the individuals who compose the firm of Moore & Co. are not set out in the warrant, being left blank, must be treated as surplusage, for the whole is thus in ef-feet blank, and the rule, utile pm' inutile &\u00a1'c. applies. So the only question is in reference to' the fraud upon the jurisdiction.\nThe creditor, without the knowledge or consent of the debtor, enters a credit on the note for the purpose'of giving jurisdiction ; the debtor has never assented to, or ratified this credit, but has always objected to it. This does not amount to a payment, and the magistrate had consequently no jurisdiction. It is a familiar maxim of law, u No one can make another his debtor without his consent.\u201d The converse is equally true. No one can give another a specific article or a sum of money, unless he chooses to accept it; and although in this latter case the acceptance is usually presumed, (as it is supposed to be for his benefit,) yet there may be reasons why he may not choose to accept, (as in our case,) and then the presumption is rebutted. Suppose a creditor, whose debt is about being barred by the statute of limitations or the presumption of payment, enters a credit; no effect whatever is given to it, unless the debtor assents to it. It is said this is like the case of a plaintiff who remits a part of his damages to prevent a variance. There is no analogy ; for then the Court allows the remittitur as an amendment of the record. State v. Mangum, 6 Ire. 369; Forteseue v. Spencer, 2 Ire. 63\u2014both assume that the case now under consideration would be a fraud upon the jurisdiction.\nJudgment reversed, and judgment that the writ be abated.\nPER Cukiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaRSon, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the defendant in this Court.",
      "Biggs, for the plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELI W. MOORE & CO. vs. NATHAN THOMSON.\nWhere the payee of a bond endorsed thereon a paymerit for the purpose of bringing the amount within a Justice\u2019s jurisdiction, upon suit brought before the Justice; \u2014 JECeld, td be a fraud upon the law, and a plea in abatement will be sustained.\n(The cases of the State v. Mangum, 6 Ire. 369. Fortescue v. Spencer, 2 Ire. 63, cited and approved.)\nThis was an action of debt, commenced by warrant before a Justice of the Peaces for the sum of one hundred dollar,\u00b6, in the name of Eli W. Moore & Co., as plaintiffs, and the same was carried by the appeal of the defendant to the Superior Court. At Fall Term, 1852, the defendant put in a plea in abatement, averring\u2014\n\u201c That the note declared on was given for the sum of one hundred and ten dollars and two cents, to Eli W. Moore & Co.\u2014 that the plaintiffs had theretofore brought suit on said note to the County Court \u2014 that the same was there dismissed at plaintiffs\u2019 costs \u2014 and that plaintiffs\u2019 attorney, pending stiid suit, endorsed on the note a credit of $ 10.02., and thereupon caused this present suit to be instituted by warrant before a Justice of the Peace\u2014 wherefore, because the said endorsement has been made by the attorney aforesaid of the plaintiffs, with the design and intent to change the jurisdiction from the Court aforesaid to a Justice of the Peace, thereby committing a fraud upon the law in such case made and provided, and the legal rights of the defendant, the said defendant prays judgment,\u201d <fcc.\nTo which plea the plaintiffs demurred \u2014 1. That the same was double, in that an abatement was prayed for ivant of parties and for want of jurisdiction, and though assigning as cause of abatement the want of parties, does not set forth the names of the parties omitted. 2. For that it is argumentative.\nUpon a joinder in demurrer by defendant, the case was argued at Martin, on the last Spring Circuit, before his Honor Judge Bailey, who gave judgment overruling the plea, and requiring the defendant to answer over ; from which judgment the defendant appealed.\nNo counsel for the defendant in this Court.\nBiggs, for the plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 235
}