{
  "id": 8682841,
  "name": "ALEXANDER ZACHARY vs. ISAAC HOLDEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Zachary v. Holden",
  "decision_date": "1855-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "453",
  "last_page": "454",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Jones 453"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 N.C. 453"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Jones 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8681200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/47/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0370-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 1867,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.005277023198263e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4231870275062368
    },
    "sha256": "bf8c409afb2d048d00a12c5adf9ced67d098e40720c05166b83977a9e67ec798",
    "simhash": "1:e06df66fd18f3eaf",
    "word_count": 323
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:13:38.493839+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALEXANDER ZACHARY vs. ISAAC HOLDEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peaeson, J.\nAllen v. Greenlee, 2 Dev. 370, is a direct authority in support of the decision made in the Court below.\nThe same principle is applied to a converse state of facts, Rodgers v. Pitman, 2 Jones 56. The two cases settle the rule to be, that where process is valid and sued out maliciously, the proper action is case; where the process is void, as for want of jurisdiction, the proper action is trespass vi eb a/rmis or trover.\nPee CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peaeson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. W. Woodjvn and Baxter, for plaintiff.",
      "Gaither and Williams, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALEXANDER ZACHARY vs. ISAAC HOLDEN.\nFor the talcing out a State\u2019s warrant which is void for the want of jurisdiction, trespass, or trover, is the proper action, and not case.\nActioN on the oase for maliciously suing out a State\u2019s warrant, tried before bis Honor Judge SaundeRS, at the Spring Term, 1855, of Macon Superior Court.\nThe warrant upon which the plaintiff was arrested is as follows:\n\u201c Whereas information hath this day been made to me L. C. Hooper, one of the acting justices of the peace for the said County on the oath of Isaac Holden,, that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that Alexander Zachary (and three others, naming them) did shoot an ox of Elisha Holden\u2019s on &c., at &c., against the peace and dignity of the State.\nYon are, therefore, commanded, in the name of the State, to arrest the said Alexander Zachary, &c.\u201d\nUpon this warrant the plaintiff was brought before an examining magistrate; the facts disclosed, as the warrant had charged, but a civil trespass. The defendant (the present plaintiff) was discharged by the magistrate with costs.\nThe plaintiff offered testimony to show malice and a want of probable cause, but his Honor being of opinion that the action was misconceived, that i.t should have been trespass and not case, the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and appealed.\nA. W. Woodjvn and Baxter, for plaintiff.\nGaither and Williams, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0453-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 462
}