{
  "id": 2090056,
  "name": "HORACE M. BARRY v. JAMES SINCLAIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barry v. Sinclair",
  "decision_date": "1866-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "7",
  "last_page": "8",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. 7"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. 7"
    }
  ],
  "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": 193,
    "char_count": 2535,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.368,
    "sha256": "fe6b8966f69731c8fe4c6bbb61082baab16b1aa27200f2d5f436e749cdcd96a8",
    "simhash": "1:c0fb4ec25a4fdd3d",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:16.220923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HORACE M. BARRY v. JAMES SINCLAIR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beade, J.\nThe plaintiff sued out an original attachment, and it was levied by the sheriff on the property of the defendant. The defendant replevied the property by giving to the sheriff a bond payable to the plaintiff, conditioned for the appearance of the defendant at the next court, to answer the plaintiff\u2019s action. At the return term the defendant appeared, and offered to plead. Tbe plaintiff objected, that the. defendant had not given a bond as required by the statute, and therefore could not plead. The court held that the bond was sufficient, and overruled the plaintiff\u2019s objection.\nThe 5th section of ch. 7, of the Revised Code, authorizes the defendant to replevy, by giving to the sheriff a \u201cbail bond.\u2019\u2019 It is true that it does not proscribe that the bond shall be payable to the sheriff, but it does prescribe a \u201cbail bond.\u201d This, as is well settled, must bo payable to the sheriff; for, originally, it was for his indemnity alone; although, afterwards, it was allowed to be assigned to the plaintiff for Ms indemnity, and, by later legislation, to enure to the benefit of the latter, even without an assignment: see Rev. Code, c. 11, s. 2, which gives to the plaintiff a summary remedy thereupon by scire facias.\nThe bond here may be good as a bond at common law, but it is not such an one as the statute requires ; and, therefore, the specific remedy upon it is not that to which the plaintiff would be entitled if it were such, i. e., a hail bond.\nWe observe that the bond filed in this case is modelled upon that prescribed by Mr. Eaton, in his \u201c Forms,\u2019\u2019 a book of great accuracy, and in very general use. We suppose that his Honor\u2019s opinion may have been founded upon that authority. The explanation is, that the phraseology of the statute under consideration has been altered since that work was published.\nThere is error. This opinion will be certified to the court below.\nPer Curiam. Exception sustained.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel in this court, for the plaintiff.",
      "Leitch, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HORACE M. BARRY v. JAMES SINCLAIR.\nA bond poyallo to the plaintiff in an attachment, and conditioned for the appearance of the defendant, &c., is not a \u201c bail bond,\u201d within the meaning of the Rev. Code, c. 7, s. 5, and, therefore, by executing such a bond, the defendant does not obtain a right to replevy and plead.\nOriginal Attachment: from an order in which, by Buxton, J., at Spring Term, 1866, of New Hanover Superior Court, (the return term,) the defendant appealed.\nThe facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.\nNo counsel in this court, for the plaintiff.\nLeitch, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0007-01",
  "first_page_order": 15,
  "last_page_order": 16
}