{
  "id": 11275776,
  "name": "King's Administrator vs. Bryant's Executor",
  "name_abbreviation": "King's Administrator v. Bryant's Executor",
  "decision_date": "1806-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mur. 131"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. 131"
    }
  ],
  "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": 104,
    "char_count": 1111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.325,
    "sha256": "e51a1c58c8da7bff59da2b688c30de778fecd54816a649bde65958bf434a3e59",
    "simhash": "1:ac83753e0acb009a",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:58.494236+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "King\u2019s Administrator vs. Bryant\u2019s Executor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the Court\nLet the rule for a new trial bo discharged,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "By the Court"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "King\u2019s Administrator vs. Bryant\u2019s Executor.\nFrom Halifax\nPlaintiff having lost the bond alter an sp-peal tVnnv ment oftile c\u00f3u\"q yi\u00bb permitted to prove me _contents mile trial perior\u201d\" Court> ami a \u00a1judgment me.clmghis declaration.\nThis wsa an action o\u00ed' debt brought ia the County Court of Northampton, and the -Bond declared on was produced on {lie tria! and the execution thereof duly proved-Yerdict arid Judgment were rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Law for * Halifax District, subsequent to the appeal and before the trial of the cause in the Superior Court, the bond .declared on was lost. No application was made to the Court to a\u00bb mend the declaration, and u\u00bbon the trial in the Superior 7 * 5 Court, a question arose, whether, as the declaration set forth a profert of the bond, the production of the bond could be dispensed with and the plaintiff be permitted to the contents thereof ? The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, and upon a rule for a new trial, the case was sent \u00cdO tlliS Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 127,
  "last_page_order": 127
}