{
  "id": 8681584,
  "name": "GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gashine v. Baer",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 108"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 N. C. 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278275
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0548-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C. 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278275
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0548-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1865,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.376,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.41186757842258e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48305055622934
    },
    "sha256": "68f23f685cecd978266651b4ca73633e9fcef6a7e0704d244798561b428c76f8",
    "simhash": "1:04b34e4bd96c4c0a",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThe defendants objected to the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which this attachment is founded.\nThe objection was properly overruled, as the affidavit is not only sufficient, hut very full and explicit in stating facts, which make out a prima facie case.\nThe matter is discussed in the late case of Hughes v. Person, 63 N. C. 548, and we will content ourselves with a reference to that case.\nPer Curiam:. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manly & Haughton for the appellants.",
      "Oreen and Mason, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER.\nAn affidavit which alleges, as grounds for an attachment, that the affiant \u201c believes that the defendants have disposed of their property and are still doing so, with the intent to defraud their creditors also, that \u201cthe defendants being largely indebted, if not insolvent, have sold and are selling their large stock of goods, at less than the cost of the same, in the city of New York, and have disposed of other valuable property for cash,\u201d is not only sufficient, but very full and explicit.\n(Hughes v. Person, 63 N. C. 548 cited and approved.)\nMotion to set aside a warrant of attachment, made before Thomas, J., at January Special Term 1870, of Craven Court.\nThe motion was based upon the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit, which, in the part impeached, was: \u201c4th, That affiant has reason to believe, and that he does believe, that the defendants have disposed of their property, and are still doing so, with the intent to defraud their creditors; 5th, That the grounds of his belief are, that the defendants being largely indebted, if not insolvent, have sold and are rapidly selling, their large stock of goods at less than the cost of the same in the city of New York, and have disposed of other valuable property recently for cash.\u201d\nHis Honor refused to make the order applied for, and the defendants appealed.\nManly & Haughton for the appellants.\nOreen and Mason, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 133
}