{
  "id": 11277255,
  "name": "THE FARMERS' BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN J. FREELAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers' Bank v. Freeland",
  "decision_date": "1858-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "326",
  "last_page": "327",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Jones 326"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 N.C. 326"
    }
  ],
  "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": 183,
    "char_count": 2626,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "sha256": "2551fec79f7fd8515e609fc4a61b5a5f58273bd42c9eca606069e2b230beee08",
    "simhash": "1:ea63b5c0535f9d4c",
    "word_count": 457
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:56.644691+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE FARMERS\u2019 BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN J. FREELAND."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe record does not state the ground upon which his Honor, in the Court below, refused to order the defendant into custody upon plaintiff\u2019s motion. It has been suggested in the argument here, that he did not deem the affidavit, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, to be sufficient under the act of 1844, chap. 31, (see Eev. Code, cli. 59, sec. 19,) because, after stating the affiant\u2019s belief, that the defendant had not property sufficient to satisfy the judgment, which can be reached by a fieri facias\u201d it did not add his belief, that the defendant did have \u201c property, money or effects, which cannot be reached by a fieri facias.\u201d That may be so, and yet the Judge\u2019s decision was wrong, because the act specifies three things, any one of which, if sworn to, will authorise the issuing of a capias ad satisfaciendum, and of course a commitment into custody. The first is, that which has been mentioned ; a second is, that the defendant has fraudulently concealed his property, money or effects ; and the third is, that he \u201c is about to remove from the State.\u201d This was expressly decided in the case of Maxwell v. Walk, 8 Ire. Rep. 517; and as the affidavit of the plaintiff\u2019s agent, in the present case, stated that the defendant was about to remove from the State, the Judge ought, upon the plaintiff\u2019s motion, to have made the order for committing the defendant, who had been surrendered in open court by his bail, into the custody of the sheriff; his refusal to make the order was error, for which the interlocutory order, from which the appeal was taken, must be reversed, and a certificate to that effect must be certified to the Court below.\nPee CueiaM, Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gilmer, for the plaintiff.",
      "McLean and Graham, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE FARMERS\u2019 BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN J. FREELAND.\nUpon the surrender in court of a principal, by his bail, it is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have the former committed to custody, that the affidavit filed by him, alleges \u201c that the defendant is about to remove from the State.\u201d\nMotioN to commit the defendant to custody, heard before SauNdees, J., at the last Term of Guilford Superior Court.\nThe defendant was surrendered in open court by his bail, and the plaintiff filed the following affidavit as the foundation of a motion to commit him into custody :\n\u201cW. A. Caldwell maketh oath, that he believes the defendant, John J. Freeland, is about to remove from the State, and that the defendant hath not property sufficient to satisfy the judgment, which can be reached b j fieri facias fi\nThe Court refused the motion to commit, and plaintiff appealed.\nGilmer, for the plaintiff.\nMcLean and Graham, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0326-01",
  "first_page_order": 334,
  "last_page_order": 335
}