{
  "id": 11277352,
  "name": "JOSEPH MARTIN v. JOHN MARTIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1858-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Jones 346"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 N.C. 346"
    }
  ],
  "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": 347,
    "char_count": 6005,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39457532080055635
    },
    "sha256": "27725b4a62eabbc11be42e6239bf07f78447a749e7c9052afc75e8bdd4f79e0c",
    "simhash": "1:5be6e5290bd45d8e",
    "word_count": 1078
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:56.644691+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH MARTIN v. JOHN MARTIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\n\u201c Not satisfied,\u201d is an insufficient return to a writ of fieri facias,, for the reason, that it does not set forth the ground upon which the officer has faile4 to make the money. But it may, nevertheless, be a false return : for instance, suppose the officer has made-the full amount required by the execution, and return it \u201c not satisfied,\u201d such a return is clearly false: it may be, if he has made only a part of the amount, and without any reference to the part received, returns it \u201c not satisfied,\u201d it would not be a false return, because, taking it literally, the execution is not satisfied, and the return may have referred to that part merely ;\u25a0 but where, as in our case, the return is made in reference to the part received, and sets forth a payment in January,, and another in March, suppressing the fact of the other payment in February, then \u201c not satisfied,\u201d is used in the sense of not satisfied as to the residue, and is necessarily false in- resjaect to the payment suppressed ; for, in that case, the return cannot be taken as having referred to the fact,, that it is not literally\" satisfied.\nThe objection, that it is not set out, either in the- writ or the declaration, that the plaintiff sued as well for the use of the party aggrieved, as for himself, is not well taken. The statute confers upon the informer the right to sue. It imposes a penalty of $500, \u201c one moiety thereof to the party aggrieved, and the other, to him that will sue for the same,\u201d consequently, lie is the only party plaintiff; and there can be no more necessity for setting out the persons for whose use the action is brought, than there is where a bond is sold without endorsement; in which case the action must be in the name of the obligee, and the addition, that it is brought for the use of the purchaser, has no legal effect, and he is not noticed as a party of record, such addition being treated merely as a memorandum, showing to whom the money may be paid; which purpose is answered in this case, by the averment in the declaration that the debt is due by force of the statute, whereby it appears that the party aggrieved is entitled to one moiety. The rule of proceeding is so stated by Chitty, 1 vol. 128 : \u201c Where a penal statute gives the whole, or a part of a penalty, to a common informer, and enables him to sue generally for the same, debt is sustainable, and he need not declare qui tarn, unless where a penalty is given for a contempt.\u201d\nHarrington v. McFarland, Conf. Rep. 408, which was cited in the argument, proves too much : for the declaration makes the State a co-plaintiff with the informer: whereas, although the action was brought for the use of the State as well as himself, he had no right to join the State as a plaintiff, but was required to sue in his own name, so as to be alone responsible for the costs of the action, as plaintiff of record. But we consider the authority of Chitty, and the cases cited by him, conclusive.\nThe judgment must be reversed, anda judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict.\nPee Cueiaji, Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morehead, for the plaintiff.",
      "McLean and Graham, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH MARTIN v. JOHN MARTIN.\nWhere'S,\u2022sheriff returns upon a fl. fa., two credits for money received thereon, >at 'different times, and, suppressing a third credit, returns not satisfied, 'it was 'Held that such return was false, and subjected Mm to the penalty of $500, under Rev. Code, ch. 105, sec. 17.\nThe penalty of $500 given by Rev. Code, ch. 105, sec. 17, may be sued for \u25a0in the name of the person bringing the action alone, and he need not set out that any one else is to share the damages with him; as that is shown, by the act itself.\nActioN of debt, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Stokes Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff declared for the penalty of $500, given by the 105th chapter, section 17, of the Revised Code, against defendant, as sheriff, for making a false return. The proof was, that a writ of fi&ri facias was issued from the Court of Equity \u2022of Stokes county, in favor of one John Brown against the plaintiff in this case, Joseph Martin, Benjamin C. Tucker and Jacob S. Salmons, for the sum of $1000, to be discharged by the payment of $721,75, with interest on $383, from April Term, 1856, and costs $37,87, returnable to the Spring Term, 1857, of the said Court, which was placed in the hands of the defendant, as sheriff of that county, more than twenty days previous to the return term.\nThe sheriff returned this writ at the said Spring Term, 1857, with two credits, endorsed as follows:\n\u201c January 15th, 1857. Eeceived on this fi. fa., by sale of defendant\u2019s property, $226,27, after deducting the sheriff\u2019s fees, $37,27, leaves a nett of $189, in sheriff\u2019s hands.\u201d\n\u201c March 9th, 1857. Eeceived on this execution one hundred dollars.\u201d There was also endorsed on the execution, \u201c not satisfied.\u201d\nThe plaintiff read in evidence the defendant\u2019s receipt for $365, received from one of the defendant\u2019s in the execution, in part of the fi. fa., dated 4th of February, 1857, which sum was not endorsed on the fi. fa.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel contended that the plaintiff could not recover:\n1st. Because the failing to endorse the credit of $365, paid on 4th of February, 1857, did not make the return false, and was only such an act as would subject the sheriff to an action on his official bond.\n2nd. Because the writ and declaration was in the name of plaintiff alone, and did not set forth that the plaintiff sued, as well for the person aggrieved, as for himself.\n3rd. That the plaintiff had not shown that he was aggrieved by the defendant\u2019s omitting to endorse the credit of $365 on the process:\nConsequently, that the defendant did not owe, or detain from the plaintiff $500.\nA verdict was taken in favor of the plaintiff for $500, subject to the opinion of the Court.\nThe Court being of opinion with the defendant, set aside the verdict and entered judgment of nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.\nMorehead, for the plaintiff.\nMcLean and Graham, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 354,
  "last_page_order": 357
}