{
  "id": 8694066,
  "name": "ISAAC JARRATT and W. W, LANG, Adm'rs, &c. v. H. C. WILSON Adm'r. &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jarratt v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1874-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "403",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. 401"
    }
  ],
  "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": 299,
    "char_count": 4481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.405,
    "sha256": "0fb95667a0c8d57a9f4b6c8e007aaef87dead0ad42f80e4a221eb899af46bf21",
    "simhash": "1:6d61fa8f219d31f2",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:06.826178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ISAAC JARRATT and W. W, LANG, Adm\u2019rs, &c. v. H. C. WILSON Adm\u2019r. &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\nThe defendants\u2019 intestate purchased of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate all his interest in a certain tract of land, and in payment therefor executed the paper writing of which the following is a copy, viz:\n\u201c Know all men, that I, W. A. Joyce, have this day bought-L. Lynch\u2019s interest in the Lynch & Halcombe mill, for twenty-five hundred dollars, which I am to pay in the following manner, to wit: I am to deliver up to said Lynch a note which I bold on him for near seventeen hundred dollars, and I am to pay balance for Lynch to Grimes Halcombe, or to secure tbe same to said nalcombe in some satisfactory manner.\nW. A. JOYCE, [l. s.]\nMay 19th, 1865.\u201d\nThe note referred to in the above bond was set up by defendant as a counter-claim, of which the following is a copy, viz:\n\u201c One day after date, 1 promise to pay W. A. Joyce, or order, $1,177.65, for value received, with interest on $1,442.79 thereof from the 4th day of December, 1863, to be paid in specie or its equivalent, as that not\u00e9is given for a specie note which was made before the war.\nL. LYNCH, [l. s.J\nEeb. 13, 1865.\nUpon the pleadings the case was referred to a commissioner .to take an account and report. In the report, the commissioner allowed the said note and interest thereon as a credit upon .the plaintiffs demand, to which the defendant excepted, for that the commissioner had not allowed him the premium on said note as a specie note, and as of the date of the note.\nUpon hearing the exception, his Honor sustained it to the .extent of allowing premium on the note, as of the date of taking the account, to wit: September 25th, 1871. Both parties being dissatisfied with the ruling of his Honor, appealed to this Court.\nThe .question presented is, not what was the value of the $1,700 note under a former contract between the parties when it was executed, but it is, what is the proper construction of another amd different contract, to wit; that set forth in the covenant sued on. The legal value of the note is one thing, the contradi value, as established by the covenant, is another. It is .plain .that the parties had in view and applied the same .-standard of value in .fixing the price of the land and the price of the note, nothing appearing in the covenant of sale to the contrary.\nThe plaintiff agrees to take $2,500 for his land, without specifying the currency ; the defendant agrees to deliver in payment a note of a nominal amount, without specifying the currency. If the defendant had performed his part of the contract by immediately surrendering up the note, it would have extinguished the plaintiff\u2019s demand to the nominal value only of the note, there being no stipulation in the covenant for taking it at another and greater value than in the words of the covenant, \u201cnear seventeen hundred dollars.\u201d The parties themselves thus fix the price of the land and the price of the note in the covenant, and are concluded in the absence of any proof of a contrary intent.\nThis covenant was entered into on the 19th of May, 1865, at a time when Confederate money had ceased to be a currency, and no other had appeared to supply its place ; the inference would be that both parties made, as the basis of their trade,' the only standard of value then known to them to wit\u00ab specie.\nJudgment reversed, report confirmed and judgment according thereto.\nPer Curiam. Judgment accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Armfield and MoCorJ&le da Bailey, for defendant.",
      "Brovm, Masten, and Batchelor, Edwards <& Batchelor, for plaintiffs."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ISAAC JARRATT and W. W, LANG, Adm\u2019rs, &c. v. H. C. WILSON Adm\u2019r. &c.\nA enters into a covenant to purchase of B certain landfe, at the price of $2,300, to he paid by the surrender to B of a note 'held by A against him for $1,700, payable in specie or its equivalent, and A promising to pay (or secure) the balance of the purchase money for the land to C.: I-Ield, that A was not entitled to any premium on the note for \u00a71,700 agreed to be surrendered, as by the agreement to surrender, the value of that note as well as the price of the land was determined by the parties.\nCivil actioN, (covenant on a sealed instrument,) heard before Cloud, J., upon exceptions to a report of a referee, at Spring-Term, 1873, of Yadkin Superior Court.\nThe facts in the case are fully set out in the opinion of the Court.\nHis Honor, upon the hearing below, allowed the exceptions-of the defendants, modifying the same, giving j udgment accordingly. Erom this judgment both plaintiffs and defendant appealed.\nArmfield and MoCorJ&le da Bailey, for defendant.\nBrovm, Masten, and Batchelor, Edwards <& Batchelor, for plaintiffs."
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 419
}