{
  "id": 8682955,
  "name": "Den on dem. of WILLIAM REID v. JOHN LARGENT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den on dem. of Reid v. Largent",
  "decision_date": "1857-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "454",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Jones 454"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 N.C. 454"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Hawks' Rep. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276395
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/10/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Dev. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697415
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0428-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2199,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.393,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3773795306212833
    },
    "sha256": "1897ff61b724f8f91c63c1e55b5a204091f4f3660ba49af41ba69126fe6e4c81",
    "simhash": "1:4ae1d5ad926618ff",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:10.197681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den on dem. of WILLIAM REID v. JOHN LARGENT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, C. J.\nThis case is, in the principle decided, covered by that of Mordecai v. Speight, 3 Dev. 428. It was there adjudged, that it would be dangerous to purchasers, and ruinous to plaintiffs in executions, to require bidders at a sheriff\u2019s sale, to see that the officer has complied with all his duties in making the sale. In that case, the sale was not opened on Monday, the sale day, but was postponed, until Tuesday, when it took place. His Honor, below, instructed the jury, that as the sheriff\u2019s sale, did not commence on Monday, the return day of the writ, his authority to sell expired with that day, and that a sale made by him, on Tuesday, was void. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for error. In Pope v. Bradley, 3 Hawks\u2019 Rep. 16, cited and approved in Mordecai v. Speight, the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Court says, \u201cthat on no principle could an irregularity in the adj ournment, annul the sale; upon the ground, that the act was directory to the sheriff, and gives a penalty against him.\u201d Here the sale was on \"Wednesday of Court, after the return day.\nPee CueiaM. There is no error, and Judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Avery, for plaintiff.",
      "T. li. Qald/well and Boaster, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Den on dem. of WILLIAM REID v. JOHN LARGENT.\nA purchaser at sheriff\u2019s sale is not bound to see that the sheriff sold on the proper day in the week, nor can he be made to lose the benefit of his purchase by an irregularity of this kind.\nThis was an-action of ejectment, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of McDowell Superior Court.\nTlie lessor of the plaintiff, in making out his chain of title, relied on a sheriff\u2019s deed, executed by one Curtis, who had made sale of the land, in controversy, as sheriff, and his .return showed that the sale was made \u201c on Wednesday 28th of January, 1846. \u201d It did not appear, from the said return, that the land had been offered on Monday and postponed from day to day; nor was there any evidence offered to show that such was the fact. _ The defendant objected to the reception of the deed; but it was admitted by the Court, and the defendant excepted.\nVerdict for the plaintiff. Judgment; and appeal by the defendant.\nAvery, for plaintiff.\nT. li. Qald/well and Boaster, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0454-01",
  "first_page_order": 462,
  "last_page_order": 463
}