{
  "id": 8683186,
  "name": "MEREDITH CREWS v. JAMES A. CREWS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crews v. Crews",
  "decision_date": "1870-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "536",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 536"
    }
  ],
  "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. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276131
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276131
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0010-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2962,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.371,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2045559846085398e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5944601403402283
    },
    "sha256": "79c202015e3ce5514c91a8b464bd897f51877a55572872f4914134282302eb39",
    "simhash": "1:ed48fc241975e5ba",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MEREDITH CREWS v. JAMES A. CREWS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThe question for our consideration is, Did the verdict of the jury warrant the judgment which his Honor directed to be entered. The verdict is as follows, to-wit: \u201cWe find all issues in favor of the plaintiff, and assess his damages at tour hundred dollars in old bank-money, interest from the 27th day of May 1863, sealed at value at time.\u201d' Thereupon the Court directed the clerk to enter the following judgment, to-wit: \u201cThat the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of four hundred and fifty-two dollars and seventy-four cents, the value of the bond declared on, of which three hundred and twenty-five dollars and thirty-seven cents is principal money, and the interest is one hundred and twenty-seven dollars and forty-one cents, and costs of suit.\u201d\nWe have examined the verdict and judgment together, with all the statements which accompany the case, but we are at a loss to discover the process of calculation by which his Honor determined the amounts of principal and interest, which he directed to be entered as a judgment. Indeed, we think the verdict so vague and uncertain in its terms as to-afford no basis for a calculation: \u201cA verdict finding matter uncertainly or ambiguously, is insufficient, and no judgment shall be given thereupon: Coke on Lit. p. 227 a.\nHere the jury assessed the damages in old bank-money, by which we are to understand, the notes issued by old banks. But there were many banks whose notes circulated in this. State, and they were of different values, some worth five, and others twenty-five cents in the dollar. Which bank shall we select as the standard to govern in this case ?\nWe are left without chart or compass, to find our way as. best we can.\nAgain the verdict says, \u201c scaled at value at time.\u201d Scaled as what ? Confederate money, or bank notes ? If bank notes, we are aware of no standard by which they can be scaled; and the words \u201cat time\u201d are equally as unintelligible. Gibson v. Groner, 63 N. C. 10, and Mitchell v. Henderson, Ib. 643, establish the rule that the value of all contracts must be estimated in United States Treasury Notes, and judgment, be rendered for such amount solvable in currency.\nHere there is no objection to the judgment on its tace, but .it- is not in pursuance of the verdict, which assessed damages in \u201cold bank-money\u201d; and as we have seen, was so unintelligible, that his Honor was not warranted in proceeding to judgment upon it.\nLet it be certified that there was error, &c.\nPer Curiam, Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rogers & Batchelor, for the appellant.",
      "Hayes, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MEREDITH CREWS v. JAMES A. CREWS.\nA verdict for \u201c four hundred dollars in old bank money, interest from the-27th of May 1863, scaled at value at time,\u201d' \u2014 is too uncertain to warrant a judgment thereupon.\n[Gibson v. Groner, 63 N. C. 10, and Mitchell v. Henderson, Ib. 613, approved.)\nDebt, tried before Watts, /., at Spring Term 1870 of Geahville Court.\nNo statement is necessary.\nThe defendant appealed.\nRogers & Batchelor, for the appellant.\nHayes, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0536-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 562
}