{
  "id": 11276266,
  "name": "JESSE HOOD v. A. FRONEBERGER and D. QUINN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hood v. Froneberger",
  "decision_date": "1868-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 35"
    }
  ],
  "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": 162,
    "char_count": 1992,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "sha256": "fcf3a87bb5e93cb8e4247647bc2a5cfd307d5857d4f57559004c4294d04910cf",
    "simhash": "1:bce7c0f0c6a3560a",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JESSE HOOD v. A. FRONEBERGER and D. QUINN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peaeson, C. J.\n\u201cWe promise to pay Jesse Hood two-hundred and sixty-nine dollars in silver coin or its equivalent in currency, for some notes on Aaron Quinn for the year 1864\u201e for value received, July 1st, 1866.\nD. Eroneberser & Co.\nA. QuiNN, Security.\u201d\nWe concur with his Honor in the opinion that this is a new contract, made 1st July, 1866, and does not fall within the exception set out in the 5th section of the Ordinance of the \u25a0 Convention, ratified 14th March 1868. It is not a note made since 1st May, 1865, in renetual of or substitute for a contract, made prior to 1st May 1865. In 1866 Eroneberger & Co. purchased of Hood notes which he held on Quinn. The fact that Quinn signs the note as surety for Froneberger & Co.,, does not, per se, give to it the character of a note in renewal of the notes of Quinn.\nThere is no error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peaeson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Merrimon, for the appellant.",
      "Bragg, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JESSE HOOD v. A. FRONEBERGER and D. QUINN.\nA note given to C in 1866 by A as principal, and B as surety, in payment for certain notes made in 1864 by B to C, which in 1866 were purchased by A from C, is anew contract by A and B, and not one \u201c in renewal of or a substitute for \u201d the contracts of 1864, within the 6th section of the Ordinance of March 14th, 1868.\nDebt, tried before Little, J., at Spring Term 1868, of the Superior Court of Cleaveland.\nThe action was brought originally in the County Court upon a note, of which a copy is set out in the opinion of the Court.\nJudgment having been recovered by.the plaintiff, in the County Court, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.\nUpon the trial in the Superior Court the only question made was, whether the note was embraced by the Military order of General Canby, No. 164, or by the Ordinance of 1868, Staying proceedings, &c. The Court instructed the jury that it. formed a new contract and could be sued upon in the County Court.\nYerdict for the plaintiff; Rule for New Trial; Rule discharged; Judgment and Appeal.\nMerrimon, for the appellant.\nBragg, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 52
}