{
  "id": 2091776,
  "name": "S. H. ELLIOTT v. G. W. LOGAN, Adm'r of MARTHA CABANISS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elliott v. Logan",
  "decision_date": "1867-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. Eq. 163"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": 214,
    "char_count": 3272,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.419,
    "sha256": "9bc3f3d3d8754872d7b7aac54f40ea177aea9a66931abafa3aef5fa499c562f5",
    "simhash": "1:b9a59ac7d141d2b8",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:26.929259+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. H. ELLIOTT v. G. W. LOGAN, Adm\u2019r of MARTHA CABANISS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nIt is stated in the bill, and it is satisfactorily proved by the evidence, that the receipt, which is for a specific sum, and in full of an account and notes, was not in fact in full of an account and notes, and was not so understood to be by the plaintiff when he signed it; and that it was so written by the agent of the intestate of the defendant, in whom the plaintiff confided, and therefore did not read it, in mistake or fraud.\nThis mistake or fraud makes a proper subject for investigation in a Court of Equity; and the plaintiff has the right to have the receipt corrected, so as to make it a receipt for the specific sum named in it and for no more.\nTo this it is objected that the complainant has complete remedy at law, for that when he sues at law and the receipt is offered in defense lie will not be concluded thereby; but may show the mistake or fraud.\nIt is true that the plaintiff would not be concluded, but still the receipt would be prima facie evidence of the payment in full; and would put the complainant at the disadvantage of having to meet a prima fade case against him, which has been made so by the mistake or fraud of the agent of the defendant\u2019s intestate.\nTo be relieved from this disadvantage, and to have the receipt corrected so as to state the truth, is the right of the complainant in this court.\nPer Curlui.\nDecree accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J. Per Curlui."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whitfield, for the complainant.",
      "Logare, and Phillips d\u00e9 Battle, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. H. ELLIOTT v. G. W. LOGAN, Adm\u2019r of MARTHA CABANISS.\nWhere a creditor was paid a smaller sum than was due, and, without reading, signed a receipt, written by one in whom he confided, and expressed to be in full of his claim, though not so understood by him; Held a proper case for a Court of Equity to relieve, by correcting the receipt.\nBill, filed to Fall Term, 1860, of the Court of Equity for Cleavelaxd, for relief against a mistake in a receipt for money, &c. Upon the coming in of the answer proofs were taken, and at Fall Term, 1866, the cause was set for hearing and transferred to this court.\nThe facts, so far as the opinion makes a detail of them necessary, were these:\nThe defendant\u2019s intestate was indebted to the complainant by two notes, for $105 and $110.75, bearing interest, and given Dec. 21st, 1854, and Aug. 4th, 1854, respectively, and also by account for a sum not established. In July, 1858, one Williamson, as agent for the defendant\u2019s intestate, paid the complainant $130, and wrote a receipt expressed as follows: \u201cReceived of Martha Cabaniss, by the hands of E. S. Williamson, one hundred and thirty dollars, in full of an account and notes.\u201d The complainant, having, as the bill alleged, confidence in the business capacity and honesty of Williamson, signed the receipt, without reading it, supposing it to be merely a receipt for the $130. The intestate did not claim in her lifetime that the receipt was a discharge of her debt, but for reasons stated in the bill, and not controverted, the matter was not adjusted; and the defendant, as of her administrator, refused to pay the balance due, in face the receipt.\nThe prayer of the bill was that the receipt should be corrected and made to speak the truth; that the defendant, should pay the balance due, and for further relief.\nWhitfield, for the complainant.\nLogare, and Phillips d\u00e9 Battle, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 173
}