{
  "id": 8686997,
  "name": "Jacob Hoover v. John Clark's Administrators",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoover v. Clark's Administrators",
  "decision_date": "1819-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "169",
  "last_page": "171",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Mur. 169"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. 169"
    }
  ],
  "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": 287,
    "char_count": 5433,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.261089887139631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47805373981263
    },
    "sha256": "2db5dcfbf2236f2619df9b5fdd659cf9cd74489641e214ef769876c807689b13",
    "simhash": "1:dd8aee75c841dcff",
    "word_count": 974
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jacob Hoover v. John Clark\u2019s Administrators."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Taylor, Chief-Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe words in the covenant declared on are, \u201c now if \u201c any thing should fail in the recovery of the said note, or \" if the said Arnold should pay the same in paper money, \u201c without allowing the depreciation, then and in that case, \u201c I do oblige myself to make the same good to the said \u201c Hoover : or if the said Arnold should be allowed areceipt \u201c given by William Dix to him, for eighteen pounds, paper \u201c money, I do oblige myself to make it good.\u201d If Avords might have been selected to express more clearly the intent of Clark, to secure the Plaintiff against the insoNency of Arnold in relation to the note, yet such intention may be fairly inferred from the terms, employed. It would seem strange that the parties should provide against the depreciation of the money, by an undertaking of Clark\u2019s to make it good, and yet the Plaintiff be content to take the risk of Arnold\u2019s inability to pay any part of the sum. The undertaking respecting the receipt of Dix, admits of the same observation, and would, under any other construction than that contended for by the Plaintiff, betray a strange caution and anxiety as to the parts of a sum intended to be secured, when the whole is left at risk. But the words <e if any thing should fail in the recovery of the said note,\u201d point to a complete indemnity to be afforded to the Plaintiff, if from any cause he should not receive the amount. A judgment is of no more value than a note, and a covenant that a judgment shall be recovered, seems an useless undertaking, unless it be also meant that the money shall be paid. If Clark had undertaken simply for the recovery, without any thing more, the legal construction would have been, not only that a judgment should be obtained, but that the money should be paid. But he has not merely stipulated for the recovery of the judgment, but of the note. A recovery signifies, in legal contemplation, the obtaining of any thing by judgment or trial at law. The recovery of the note must, therefore, signify the obtaining of the money due upon it, by means of a judgment. In my view of the covenant, the apparent intention of the parties is borne out by a technical interpretation, in which all the words are satisfied by an effective meaning. The non-suit must be set aside.\nCoke Litt. 154,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Taylor, Chief-Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jacob Hoover v. John Clark\u2019s Administrators.\n~j L From Randolph. J\nAction of covenant on a deed, in which the Defendant set forth \u201c that in \u201c consideration of 441. to him paid, he had sold to the Plaintiff a note \u201c of hand upon John Arnold for 501. given by him to one Macshan: \u201c And if there should any thing fail in the recovery of the note, or if \u201c Arnold should pay it in paper money without allowing the deprecia* \u201c tion, then and in that case, the Defendant obliged himself to make \u201cthe same good to the Plaintiff; or if Arnold should be allowed a \u201c receipt by one Dix to him for 181. the Defendant obliged himself to \u201c make it good.\u201d\nThis covenant extends to the solvency of Arnold, and the object of it was to secure the Plaintiff against his insolvency, the allowance of the depreciation and the receipt of Dix.\nThe words \u201c if any thing should fail in the recovery of the said note,\u201d point to a complete indemnity to the Plaintiff, if from any cause he should not receive the amount of the note: they mean not only that a judgment should be obtained, but that the money should be paid.\nA \u201crecovery\u201d signifies, in legal contemplation, the obtaining of anything by judgment or trial at law.\nThis was an action covenant brought to recover damages for a breach of the covenants contained in the following deed, to-wit:\n\u201c Know all men by these presents, that I, John Clark, of Randolph \u201c County, and State of North-Carolina, for and in consideration of the sum \u201c of forty-four pounds, hard money, to me in hand paid, by Jacob Hoover, \u201c have bargained and sold him one note of hand upon John Arnold, Es- \u201c quire, given by him to Nehemiah Macshan, for fifty pounds, Virginia \u201c money; now if there should any thing fail in the recovery of the said \u201c note, or if tire said John Arnold should pay the said note with paper \u00ab money, without allpwing the depreciation, then and in that case, X do \u201c oblige myself to make the same good to the said Hoover; orif the said \u201c John should be allowed a receipt given by William Dixto him for eigh- \u201c teen pounds, paper money, I also oblige myself to make it good. Wit~ \u201c ness my ^ani^ an^ seab ti\u00fas 11th day of April, 1793.\nJOHN CLARK, (Seal.)\u201d\nThe declaration assigned for breaches, 1st, That Jacob Hoover, (without his default) did entirely and absolutely fail in the recovery of the said note., or any part thereof, from John Arnold; and that John Clark had not, although often requested, made the' same good to him, nor indemnified him for the loss which he had sustained thereby. 2d. That \u00abpon a settlement with John Arnold, he Avas obliged to allow, and did allow to Arnold, the receipt given by William Dix to Arnold, for eighteen pounds, paper money, Avhich Clark, although requested, had not made good to Hoover.\nUpon the trial, the Court non-suited the Plaintiff, on the ground that the covenant did not extend to the solvency of Arnold, but only that a judgment should be obtained ,\u2022 that the depreciation should be allowed, and that the receipt of Dix should not be available. A rule for a new trial being obtained, it was sent to this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0169-01",
  "first_page_order": 173,
  "last_page_order": 175
}