{
  "id": 8690008,
  "name": "William Filgo v. William Penny",
  "name_abbreviation": "Filgo v. Penny",
  "decision_date": "1812-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "183",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Mur. 182"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. 182"
    }
  ],
  "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": 124,
    "char_count": 1844,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.379,
    "sha256": "5c7435f398317978cb16e15d5d4a38ec09c6d49526aca4c71df4bdb805573838",
    "simhash": "1:92ebc9bf2947e8cf",
    "word_count": 330
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.600243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Filgo v. William Penny."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harris, Judge,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe case states, that there was no evidence of a special agreement, and the only evidence to support the money counts was, that the Plaintiff had, by mistake, paid to the Defendant a fifty dollar bank note for a five dollar bank note. A bank note is not money, and does not differ in its nature from any other promissory note payable to bearer. A delivery by mistake of any thing, except money, does not pass the property in the thing delivered, and cannot raise an implied promise to pay-money. Let the rule for a new trial be made absolute.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harris, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Filgo v. William Penny.\nFrom Johnston.\nA. having by mistake paid to B. a fifty dollar banlc note, for a five dollar bank note, cannot maintain assumpsit to recover back forty-five dollars. A bank note is not money, and a delivery by mistake of any tiling except money, does not pass the property in the thing delivered, and cannot raise an implied promise to pay money.\nThis case commenced by a warrant before a Justice of the Peace, in which the Plaintiff claimed the sum of forty-five dollars, \u201c a balance due to him on exchange of some bank notes.\u201d The Plaintiff declared upon a special agreement, and for money liad and received, for money paid to the Defendant by mistake, &c. There was no evidence of any special agreement, and the only evidence to maintain the other counts was, that the Plaintiff had, by mistake, paid to the Defendant, a fifty dollar bank note, for a five dollar bank note. No promise, either express or implied, was proved, unless the payment of the bank note as aforesaid, implied a promise to pay money. The Defendant relied upon the plea of <\u00a3 non-assumpsit.\u201d The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, under the charge of the Court; and a rule for a new trial being obtained,, the same was sent to this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 186,
  "last_page_order": 187
}