{
  "id": 11276455,
  "name": "V. TEAGUE v. HIRAM JAMES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Teague v. James",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 91"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Dev. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696076
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 2938,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.190343705575437e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9568241237230433
    },
    "sha256": "7d4ed20c3f65a213ee88dc25b405602c0c49cc9a8e2373eafcc1da4f3555b543",
    "simhash": "1:a3b0c41e4c481a8f",
    "word_count": 515
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "V. TEAGUE v. HIRAM JAMES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PearsoN. C. J.\nIt was properly conceded on the argument, that if this case is to be governed by the old rules of \u201c practice and procedure \u201d there is no error in the ruling of his Honor in the Court below.\nBut it was insisted that the new rules of \u201c practice and procedure, \u201d are applicable to the case. And if so, the defendant should be allowed to prove his counter-claim as a defence to the action. We are of opinion that the new rules are not applicable, and that his Honor was right in proceeding according to the old rules.\nThe action was commenced prior to the ratification of the \u201c Code of Civil Procedure \u201d and it is founded on a contract not embraced by the Stay Ordinance, and if the question was left to depend upon the construction of sub-division 4, \u00a7 8, there might have been some doubt, as that sub-division is \u25a0obscurely worded, and the meaning of the words \u201c as near as may be \u201d is by no means clear. But all difficulty is removed by \u00a7\u00a7 400 and 402. Sec. 400 provides that all suits pending in any of the Courts at the ratification of this Act, shall be \u2022entered on a separate docket by the Clerks of the Superior Courts. Sec. 402 provides that \u201csaid suits shall be proceeded :in and tried under the existing laws and rules applicable thereto \u201d up to final judgment. This covers the case, and leaves no room for doubt or for construction.\nSo the defendant must b.e content with the remedy by a mew action to set up his counter-claim, in which by proper -averments, he may entitle himself to the provisional remedy of injunction.\nThere is no error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PearsoN. C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Caldwell, for the appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "V. TEAGUE v. HIRAM JAMES.\nActions pending at the time of the ratification of the Code, are to be proceeded ivith and tried under such Jaws and rules then existing as may be be applicable : therefore, in such actions a \u201c cnnntor-claim admissible.\nDebt, tried before Mitchell, J., at Fall Term 1868 of the-Superior Court of Alexander.\nThe action had been commenced by warrant before a Justice of the Peace issued September 5th 1867, upon a bond dated March 8th 1867, and from a judgment against him the-defendant appealed to the Superior Court. The defendant pleaded General Issue, No consideration, and Failure of consideration; and offered to prove that the bond was given for a horse sold to defendant by the plaintiff, \u2014 which, some while-before, the plaintiff had conveyed to a trustee for the payment of certain debts, and that after the horse had remained with the defendant for several months, the trustee took him and sold him under the trust.\nHis Honor being of opinion that such proof would not. affect the plaintiff\u2019s rights to recover, there was a verdict and judgment; from which the defendant appealed.\nW. P. Caldwell, for the appellant.\nFurches, contra, cited McEntyre v. McFntyre, 12 Ir, 299; 'Washburn v. Picot, 3 Dev. 390; and also, Const, of North \u2022Carolina, Judiciary,, Sec. 25; Code of Civil Procedure, \u00a7\u00a7 296. .-and 402."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 108
}