{
  "id": 11277188,
  "name": "W. W. VANNOY and others v. WM. HAYMORE, Sheriff",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vannoy v. Haymore",
  "decision_date": "1874-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "129",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 N.C. 128"
    }
  ],
  "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": 178,
    "char_count": 2514,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28342694882983527
    },
    "sha256": "b7547f263a8fe7290daa42af5681fc1317d931a22ad500848df84f207ea3b0b4",
    "simhash": "1:5991dd30c5682d19",
    "word_count": 440
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:20.176490+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. W. VANNOY and others v. WM. HAYMORE, Sheriff."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reads, J.\n\u201cNo officer shall be compelled to perform any service, unless his fees be paid or tendered.\u201d C. C. P., sec. 555.\nIn- the case before us,, the sheriff\"returns \u201c my fees for laying off homestead and personal property exemptions not paid or tendered to me by plaintiffs or claimants \u2014 not executed.\u201d\nAnd the ease states that \u201c no fees were tendered or paid by the plaintiff or any of them.\u201d This statement covers not only fees for laying off homestead and personal [property exemption, but for executing the process as well. And it is clear that the sheriff ought not to have been amerced.\nThe point was made that while the homestead must be laid off before the levy, the personal property exemption is to be laid off after the levy. So that if the sheriff was not obliged to lay off the homestead without a tender of his fees, yet he was obliged to levy on the personal property. If any such distinction exists, it does not avail the plaintiffs, because the sheriff was not only not obliged to lay off the homestead and personal property exemption without a tender of his fees for that; but he was not obliged to levy without a tender of his fee for that.\nThere is error.\nPer Cubiam. Judgment reversed and judgment here for defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reads, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott and Caldwell, for appellants.",
      "Folk-da,Armfield, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. W. VANNOY and others v. WM. HAYMORE, Sheriff.\nA Sheriff is not compelled to lay off a homestead or a personal property exemption before his fees for such service are tendered or paid.\nCivil actioN in the nature of a scire facias, beard before Mitchell, J., at the Spring Term, 1874, of the Superior Court of Ikecdell county.\nDefendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff\u2019s action for want of an undertaking for costs. Motion overruled. He again moved to dismiss for want of a summons and complaint in the name of the State. His Honor overruled this motion also ; whereupon defendant filed a defence, setting forth, among other things:\n(4th.) That the return on the execution, which-is alleged to be not a due return is as follows, to wit: \u201c Come to hand,.... day of., 187 , homestead and personal' property exemption not demanded by the defendants,\u201d (in the execution.) My fees for laying off homestead and personal property exemption not paid or tendered to me by plaintiff or claimants, not executed.\u201d Which return is a due and proper return in law\u2014 no fees being tendered or paid by plaintiff or by any of the parties.\nHis Honor gave judgment against the defendant for $100, from which judgment he appealed.\nScott and Caldwell, for appellants.\nFolk-da,Armfield, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 137
}