{
  "id": 8683258,
  "name": "CHARLES W. LYNAM v. WILLIAM H. CALIFER and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lynam v. Califer",
  "decision_date": "1870-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "573",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 572"
    }
  ],
  "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": 220,
    "char_count": 2780,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.39,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.465495758632658e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4853070584424034
    },
    "sha256": "8a7cd97f4a4cf268a9681083f7c76f6fcea753478a16c790ce9c805a36e6aca9",
    "simhash": "1:dffa976aa89403e9",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES W. LYNAM v. WILLIAM H. CALIFER and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThis was a bill in equity seeking to correct a mistake, by putting out of the way a seal which was attached to the signatures of a firm name; and also to en force the payment of the debt.\nAll questions of fact as well as of law were submitted, by agreement of parties, to the decision of his Honor. The facts found are fully set forth in the statement of the case transmitted to this Court, and clearly justify his Honor in decreeing the relief which he granted. Indeed the bill and answers (without regard to proofs, upon which his Honor also acted) make a strong case for relief. It is against conscience for the defendants to take advantage of a mere mistake in attaching a seal to the name of their firm. The power of the Court to grant the relief prayed for, is discussed in McKay v. Simpson, 6 Ire. Eq. 452; and in Womack v. Eacker, Phil. Eq. 161.\nPee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Graham and G. M. Busbee, for the appellant.",
      "Bogers & Batchelor, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES W. LYNAM v. WILLIAM H. CALIFER and others.\nWhere a seal was attached, by misiahe and ignorance, to the name of a firm signed to a note given for value, the mistake was corrected in equity, and the plaintiff was allowed to recove ras if there had been no seal.\n(McKay v. Simpson, 6 Ire. Eq. 452; and Womack v. Eacker, Phil. Eq. 161, approved.)\nBill in equity, beard by Watts, ./., at Spring Term 1870, \u2022of Granville Court.\nTbe plaintiff stated that in 1866 be bad bargained to tbe defendant Califer a quantity of tobacco, at tbe price of $270; and that they applied to tbe defendant Long, to become, surety upon tbe note which Califer was to give; that Long agreed that if bis partner, tbe defendant Eeed, were willing, tbe firm name, \u201c Long & Co.,\u201d might be signed thereto, and referred them to Eeed; and that having gone to Eeed,. who lived at some distance, be signed tbe name of tbe firm. He ais o stated that, by mistake and through ignorance on bis part, a seal was added to tbe signature; that Califer bad become insolvent, and that upon demanding tbe money from tbe other defendants, they declined to pay, upon tbe ground that Eeed bad no authority to execute a bond for tlie firm. Tlie prayer was tliat tlie defendants be declared liable, &c., and for farther relief.\nTlie defendants Long & Reed pnt their defence mainly upon an allegation that the plaintiff and Oalifer had misrepresented the amount of the note, as being about $100, instead of $270.\nThere was a decree pro confesso as to Oalifer.\nUpon the trial it was agreed to refer the questions of fact to his Honor for decision.\nHe found the facts to be substantially as stated in the bill; that the note was drawn at the home of Reed, and that there was no misrepresentation, &c.\nJudgment for the plaintiff, &c.; Appeal by the defendant.\nGraham and G. M. Busbee, for the appellant.\nBogers & Batchelor, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 596,
  "last_page_order": 597
}