{
  "id": 8683196,
  "name": "V. C. BARRINGER, Guardian, &c., v. W. J. HOLBROOK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barringer v. Holbrook",
  "decision_date": "1870-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 540"
    }
  ],
  "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": 142,
    "char_count": 1801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.402,
    "sha256": "a542d72a4af331933f94ea1a7c709537212c3a57b8170e93a5d8f4f9938f04f3",
    "simhash": "1:6fb2d3495170a786",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "V. C. BARRINGER, Guardian, &c., v. W. J. HOLBROOK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bodman, J.\nThe set off alleged as a defence was made -so by the express agreement of the plaintiff. The Judge below should have affirmed the judgment of the justice, instead of dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s appeal. The latter course would have been proper, if there had been any irregularity in the appeal itself, but that was not alleged.\nJudgment of his Honor reversed, and judgment for the \u2022defendant.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boyden & Bailey, and Wilson, for the appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "V. C. BARRINGER, Guardian, &c., v. W. J. HOLBROOK.\nWhere an appeal from a magistrate is regular in form, and the Court discovers no error in the proceedings, \u2014 the judgment should be one affirming that given below, and not, dismissing the appeal.\n(Case where a note was allowed as a set off because of theTexpress agreement of the parties.)\nCivil action, tried, upon appeal from a Justice of the Peace, by Logcm, J., at Spring Term 1870 of Cabarrus Court.\nThe cause of action was a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff, for the hire of a slave for 1860. The slave belonged to one J. E. Eussell, a ward of - the plaintiff, and at the hiring, it was bid off by one E. E. Eussell, another ward of the plaintiff. The plaintiff declined to take a bond for the price from the hirer, because of the relation between them, but told the defendant to give his bond therefor, and then to take a bond for the same amount from the hirer, payable to himself; and that upon a settlement he (plaintiff) would, allow the latter bond as a set off to the one given to him. These bonds were accordingly executed.\nUpon the trial before the magistrate the set off was allowed, and the plaintiff appealed.\nWhen the case was tried by his Honor, he ordered the appeal to be dismissed.\nThe plaintiff appealed again.\nBoyden & Bailey, and Wilson, for the appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 565
}