{
  "id": 8682585,
  "name": "DAVID L. BRINGLE vs. JOHN A. BRADSHAW",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bringle v. Bradshaw",
  "decision_date": "1864-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "129",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Win. 129"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.C. 129"
    }
  ],
  "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": 256,
    "char_count": 3469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.386,
    "sha256": "1674da42562ff60fd461a2381ef7da5e229816c3b706ce77a81ca2183da96067",
    "simhash": "1:bb130c357575d7c0",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:57.689025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID L. BRINGLE vs. JOHN A. BRADSHAW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe petitioner, who would be otherwise liable to perform military service in tbe Home Guard of the State, claims an exemption therefrom, on the.ground that lie is a contractor with the Confederate government to carry the mail over \"a route more than ten miles long,, in the county of Cabarrus. * ,-\nIt is contended for him, first, that he is an officer of the Confederate government, and- is, as' such, expressly exempted in the act of the called session of the Legislature in July, 1868, ch.\u2018 10, \u201c an act in relation to the Militia and a.Guard for Home Defence;\u201d secondly, that if not . an officer, in the sense of that act, yet he has imposed upon him, by his contract with the Confederate govern.ment, important public duties which require his personal. attention, and wliicb are incompatible with the \u00abLuty- o\u00a3 military service in the Home Guard.\n. The act establishing a\u2019 Guard for Home Defence, in the second section, exempts, among other persons, \u201c the civil and military officers of the Confederate government;\u201d and the point raised upon the first ground taken for the petitioner, is that he is a civil officer of that gavernnient. What is an office? It is said to be a place u where one man hath tb do with' another\u2019s affairs against his will, and without his leave .; and he who is in it is an officer.\nThere is a difference between an office and an employment; every, office is an employment; but there' are employments-which do not come under the - denomination of offices.\u201d 7 Bac. Abr., 279, Offices <-.nd Officers Letter A. \u201c Offices are distinguished into those which are of a public,.and those which, are of a private, nature; and herein it is said-that every man is a public officer; who hath any duty concerning the public ; and. he is not the less a public officer, where his authority is confined to narrow limits : because it is the duty of his office, .and the4 nature of his duty, which make him a public officer, and not the-extent of his authority.\u201d Id., 280.\nTaking'this definition of offices and officers to be cor-i ject, the duty which is devolved upon a contractor to carry the mail must constitute him a civil officer of theCon-federate States. He assumes the performance of certain services under the autheritj'\u2019 of the Confederate government, and be has the exclusive right to perforin them, and to receive the compensation provided therefor.. These services are of a public nature, and though the authority of the contractor may be confined to narrow limits, yet the \u2022services are of great importance to \u25a0 the public: He is, therefore, within the express terms of the exemption eon-tained in tlie act concerning tbe Home Guards. We are, therefore, unable to perceive any error in tjie judgment of discharge granted t<jthe petitioner, by bis Honor-Judge Heath ; aud it must he affirmed, with costs. \u00bb",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mackmer for Bringle."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID L. BRINGLE vs. JOHN A. BRADSHAW.\nA contractor to carry the mail is a civil > ilicc-r of the Confederate government, and, therefore, exempted from s, < vice in the Home Guard, by the act of the General Assembly at the sesi\u00f3n of July, 1883, cb. 10.\nThis was a writ of certiorari at the suit of John A-Bradshaw, to bring into this Court for review the.judgment of Heath, J., in a writ of habeas corpus sued out bj Davicl t, Bringle against John A. Bradshaw, an officer of the Home-Guard. * . ' .\nThe facts are stated in the opinion' of the Court.\nJudge Heath discharged the petitioner from custody,\nMackmer for Bringle."
  },
  "file_name": "0129-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 247
}