{
  "id": 8685940,
  "name": "John R. Adam v. David Hay",
  "name_abbreviation": "Adam v. Hay",
  "decision_date": "1819-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "149",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Mur. 149"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. 149"
    }
  ],
  "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": 146,
    "char_count": 2012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.39,
    "sha256": "b5221331a08687ffeca5fd9ad48795ab23f9424c4dfe44c407cb8e94141108fb",
    "simhash": "1:98344b385a372dda",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John R. Adam v. David Hay."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, Judge,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nWe do not see any facts disclosed in the affidavit to induce us to grant a new trial. We know of no custom which could excuse the Defendant from the operation of the law governing common carriers. If such a custom do exist, and it would aid the Defendant, it is strange he should have been unable to prove it on the trial, as the Court was liolden in the town where the greatest part of the commercial transactions on the Cape-Fear are carried on. Let the rule be discharged.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John R. Adam v. David Hay.\nFrom Cumberland.\nIn an action against a Common Carrier on the Cape-Fear River, there was a verdict for the Plaintiff, and Defendant moved for a new trial, supporting his motion by an affidavit that he expected to prove by the witnesses whom he examined on the trial, a custom among the owners and freighters of Boats on the River, winch would have excused him from the liability of a common carrier: That he was disappointed in their evidence and thereby surprised : That since the verdict he had discovered witnesses who he believed would prove the custom, and that he did not know of their testimony until after the verdict. Motion for a new trial disallowed.\nThe Defendant was sued as a common carrier on the River Cape-Fear, between Fayetteville and Wilmington.\nThere was a verdict for the Plaintiff, and a rule for a new trial was obtained upon the following affidavit, to-wit,\n\u201c The Defendant swears that he had been induced to believe that the \u201c witnesses whom he summoned to prove the custom of the owners and \u201c freighters of boats upon the River, would have sufficiently proved the \u00ab custom, so as to excuse him as a carrier: and that he was surprised at \u00ab the trial, to learn that they would not. That since the trial he has dis- \u201c covered witnesses who he believes will prove the custom, and that he * did not know of their testimony until since the trial.\u201d\nThe rule for a new trial was discharged, and the De\u00bb fendant appealed to this Court: And"
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 153,
  "last_page_order": 153
}