{
  "id": 1955460,
  "name": "W. S. FONTAINE v. C. W. WESTBROOKS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fontaine v. Westbrooks",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "528",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 528"
    }
  ],
  "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": 247,
    "char_count": 4354,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1126695134722388e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5710790474657017
    },
    "sha256": "73d3fd94c278d299671c3327f89abe67f2699b3199da453c47cae4d73200c9ba",
    "simhash": "1:935b7d00ac1245a6",
    "word_count": 720
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. S. FONTAINE v. C. W. WESTBROOKS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nThere has been no such judgment rendered against the principals, as is contemplated in the appeal bond j consequently there has been no breach of th.e condition of the ' bond.\nThe judgment rendered, was simply to fix the amount for the purpose of proving it, as a debt in bankruptcy, as is provided under the 21st section of the Bankrupt Act.\nThe discharge of the principals^ was a bar to any j udgment against them, except for the purpose above indicated; and that is not the judgment which the sureties undertook to abide by and perform. In short, the bankruptcy of the principals made it impossible for the plaintiff to obtain judgment against them, within the meaning of the appeal bond; and the sureties have not been'fixed with a liability to see the judgment performed, because there is no judgment.\nThere is error.\nBek Curiam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dillard c& Gilmer, for plaintiff.",
      "Scott & Scott, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. S. FONTAINE v. C. W. WESTBROOKS et al.\n.A judgment rendered against a certificated bankrupt, merely to ascertain the amount of his indebtedness to the plaintiff, is not such a judgment as will make the sureties of said bankrupt liable therefor on an Appeal bond.\nThis was an action of assumpsit begun in the County Court \u2022 of Guilford County, wherein the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants, \"Westbrooks and Albright, from which the said defendants appealed to the Superior Court of \"law of Guiltord County, and gave as sureties to their appeal \u2018bond the defendants, \u00a5m. A. Donnell and \u00a5m. M. Albright, tried before Tcmrgee, J., .at a special \u00a1term of Guilford Superior Court, held in August, 1870.\nDuring the pendency .of the appeal., the defendants, West-'brooks and Albright, were adj udged bankrupts on their own petition in the District Court-of the United States for the district of Pamlico.\nThe account of plaintiff 'being -disputed, the plaintiff, on the \u00a125th February, 1869, filed a petition in said District Court against said bankrupts, alleging that .said .claim was litigated, aiid praying that he be permitted to prosecute his said suit to judgment.\nThe District Court made the following .cuider, upon the hearing of said petition: -\n\u201cIt is determined, and 'the (Court .doth nosy so order and grant, that the plaintiff, ''Win. S. Fontaine, have leave to proceed to the trial of \"his .said \u00a1cause, ;in -the ^Superior Court of \u25a0Guilford County, and to -judgment in .-said (.Court, if the said Court shall determine that the plaintiff \u00a1is entitled to judgment, for the purpose of ascertaining -the amount due, but for no \u25a0other purpose, .and to mo .other ,extent is this permission\nThe defendants, Westbrooks and Albright, filed their plea \u2022of discharge in bankruptcy, embracing in said plea a copy of ftheir said discharges as bankrupts.\nDuring the progress of the trial, at the said Special Term of \u25a0Guilford Superior Court, the defendants, Westbrooks and Al-bright, proposed to offer evidence of their discharge as bankrupts ; this evidence was excluded by the Court, upon the .assurance of the plaintiff that he did not propose to take a judgment, to be enforced by execution, but merely to ascertain his debt. To which ruling of the Court, the defendants excepted.\nThere was a verdict for the plaintiff for $95.00, with interest thereon till paid, upon which his Honor rendered up judgment, .\u2022and ordered that no execution issue against the defendants West-brooks and Albright, but that execution issue against their sureties on the appeal bond, for the amount of the judgment, inter\u2022est and costs. Erom which defendants appealed, and assigned \u00a1as erroi\u20193:\n1st. That the Court refused to allow evidence to be given to \u00a1sustain the plea of their discharge as bankrupts.\n2d. That the Court entered up judgment against the defensdants, in favor of the plaintiff for \u00a1the amount of the recovery, with interest thereon till paid.\n3d. That the Court rendered j udgment against the defendants, Westbrooks and Albright, who were admitted to be discharged \u00a1bankrupts, for the costs of the action to be taxed by the Clerk.\n4th. That the Court entered up judgment against Wm. A. Donnell and W. M. Albright, sureties on the appeal bond, for \u00a1the amount of plaintiff\u2019s recovery, against the defendants West-brooks and Albright, and the costs of action, and ordered that -\u2022execution issue therefor.\nDillard c& Gilmer, for plaintiff.\nScott & Scott, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0528-01",
  "first_page_order": 538,
  "last_page_order": 540
}