{
  "id": 2092695,
  "name": "WM. McCOMBS Guardian vs. W. F. GRIFFITH and J. N. ALEXANDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCombs v. Griffith",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. 83"
    }
  ],
  "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": 134,
    "char_count": 1641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39461200247582
    },
    "sha256": "35718f101d9f3c7ccab16307c531f78ca8330b65bb61e1abb233eed5edb9a025",
    "simhash": "1:7ab70d744fbc3d00",
    "word_count": 281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:25.131400+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WM. McCOMBS Guardian vs. W. F. GRIFFITH and J. N. ALEXANDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eeade, J.\nWe agree with his Honor that the note sued on \u00e1s not subject to the legislative scale. The presumption that it was given for Confederate currencj7 is rebutted by the evidence that it was given for other consideration, i. e., the distributive share of the plaintiff\u2019s ward in the estate of his father, which he had the right to demand in good money, There is no error.\nPer Curiam, \u2022 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eeade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gui\u00f3n and Wilson, for the plaintiff.",
      "Dowd, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WM. McCOMBS Guardian vs. W. F. GRIFFITH and J. N. ALEXANDER.\nA note given in October, 1803, to a distributee upon settlement of an estate, for an amount due in good money, is not subject to the scale of depreciation.\nCivil action on a promissory note for $659.66, given October 20th, 1863, tried before Ilenry, Jat January Special Term, 1872, o\u00ed the Superior Court of Mecklenburg.\nThe evidence was that the note was given for a distributive share due the plaintiff\u2019s ward in the estate of-Eeid, of which the defendant Alexander was administrator; that in '\u201960 Alexander sold the property of his intestate, and the endant Griffith bought to the amount of $1,375, for which gave his note; that upon the settlement of the estate in ctober, 1863, the balance due on Griffith\u2019s note being about \u00ede sum due the plaintiff\u2019s ward, Griffith\u2019s note was surrendered to him, and he and Alexander executed the note in question to the p\u2019aintiff.\nThe defendants contended that the note was liable to the scale of depreciation, but his Honor charged otherwise, and a verdict was returned and judgment rendered for the face of the note and interest, whereupon the defendants appealed.\nGui\u00f3n and Wilson, for the plaintiff.\nDowd, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 93
}