{
  "id": 8682978,
  "name": "E. H. GRANT ET. AL. EXECUTORS v. J. A. REID ET. AL. ADM'R",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grant v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1854-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Jones 512"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 N.C. 512"
    }
  ],
  "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": 231,
    "char_count": 3169,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.421,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47326195465449916
    },
    "sha256": "7c8aba644b5306625400df7ab865dbd63b393bfa824353e044727a8d57ca8154",
    "simhash": "1:219b739daacb97b1",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:17.533540+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. H. GRANT ET. AL. EXECUTORS v. J. A. REID ET. AL. ADM'R."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nWe are informed by the counsel for the plaintiffs,, that this appeal was taken before the case of Chauncy v. Baldwin, decided at the last December Term, (see ante. 78,) was reported. We think that the present case is substantially ther same with that, and must be governed by it. The affidavit of the plaintiffs\u2019 testator, that the note sued on had not been assigned' nor negotiated by him, was inadmissible as testimony, and cannot therefore make any difference. The loss or destruction of a note or bond, is the only fact which the party\u2019s own affidavit is admissible to prove, and that only for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Court of Equity, and of admitting secondary evidence of the contents of the note or bond, in the Courts either of law or equity.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum and Davis, for plaintiffs.",
      "Avery, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. H. GRANT ET. AL. EXECUTORS v. J. A. REID ET. AL. ADM'R.\nIn an action at law, upon a negotiable paper alleged to be lost, the loss cannot be proved by the oath of the plaintiff. His affidavit is not admissible to prove that he had not negotiated the paper, nor for any other purpose, but* in Courts of Equity, to give jurisdiction ; and in both Courts, to let in secondary testimony\n(ChauNcy v. Baldwin, Jones\u2019 Rep. 78, cited and approved.)\nActioN of Debt, tried before bis Honor Judge Dick, at the Spring Term, 1854, of McDowell Superior Court.\nThe suit was commenced oidginally by a -warrant before a Justice of the Peace, by the plaintiff\u2019s testator, and came up by successive appeals to this Court. On the trial before the Justice of the Peace, the plaintiff\u2019s testator made the following affidavit:\n\u201c William Grant malceth oath, that John Reel, late of McDowell county, was indebted to him in the sum of forty dollars; that, on the 5th day of May, 1848, he, the said Reel, executed bis note to affiant, due one day after date, for forty dollars, as evidence of said indebtedness. Affiant swears that the note has been mislaid or lost.\u201d\nHe also swore, in another affidavit, \u201cthat the note had not been negotiated or assigned by him, but was justly owing to bim by the defendants.\u201d These affidavits were offered on the trial in the Superior Court, and objected to by the defendant, but received by the Court, subject to the question reserved.\nThe plaintiff's intestate having died, and the present plaintiffs, bis executors, having, in the mean time, been made parties, they made the further affidavit, \u201cthat they had made diligent search for the note, and could not find it,\u201d which was also objected to, but received by the Court, on the terms above stated. Upon this and other evidence, the cause was submitted to the jury, under an agreement that the questions above stated should be reserved for his Honor\u2019s consideration, with leave to set aside the verdict and enter a non-suit, if rendered for the plaintiffs. The jury found the verdict for the plaintiffs.\nAfterwards, his Honor, having considered the questions reserved, and being of opinion with the defendants, ordeied the verdict to be set aside, and a non-suit of the plaintiffs entered. From which judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.\nBynum and Davis, for plaintiffs.\nAvery, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 520,
  "last_page_order": 521
}