{
  "id": 8682423,
  "name": "JORDAN WOMBLE v. GEORGE LITTLE and HENRY MORDECAI",
  "name_abbreviation": "Womble v. Little",
  "decision_date": "1876-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "257",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. 255"
    }
  ],
  "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": 231,
    "char_count": 3307,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.396,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.27879270835649e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6164909614421535
    },
    "sha256": "0102b351950e641a805d6c9c8aa3331766dc42c3da4e1b3102ee04a9fec495f4",
    "simhash": "1:d09b55fd4a511dc8",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:39.099656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JORDAN WOMBLE v. GEORGE LITTLE and HENRY MORDECAI."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThe defendant\u2019s appeal rests upon the'idea that there is a variance between the judgment rendered by the magistrate and the one docketed in the office of the Superior Court Clerk, when, in fact, though expressed in words somewhat different, they mean precisely the same thing. The defendant contends that the Justice\u2019s judgment implies interest at six per cent. only. But of course his judgment, giving \u201cinterest from 10th day of April, 1874,\u201d upon a note which, specified on its face that it should bear interest, at eight per \u2022cent. pur annum, could mean nothing else than interest at eight per cent; and when the Clerk, in docketing the Justice\u2019s judgment, which was taken by confession, according to specialty filed, added the words \u201cat eight per cent.\u201d he did not,, in the least degree, change the sense or the legal effect of the Justice\u2019s judgment.\nThe judgment of the Superior Ccmt is iffirmed.\nThere are four other otes lchutn tl t tin e parties, and involvirg the tin e part, l<fot vs tt tl is tom. Let judgment be cutocd in all in ttriem ity to tl is pinion.\nPee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones (\u00c9 Jones, for the appellants.",
      "A. M. Lewis, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JORDAN WOMBLE v. GEORGE LITTLE and HENRY MORDECAI.\nWhere A confessed judgment in a court of a Justice of the Peace, in favor of B, upon a note, upon its face bearing interest at the rate of eight per cent., and the Justice gave judgment for the principal of the note, \u201cwith interest from date,\u201d and the judgment being sent to the Superior Court to be docketed, execution was thereon issued for the principal sum \u201c with interest at 8 per cent:\u201d Held, that there was no material variance between the judgment as rendered and the transcript upon which the execution issued.\nThis was a ^MOTION in the cause heard before his Honor Judge Watts, at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Wake county.\"\nThe motion was \u201c to reform the judgment entered, and for an order to issue to the Sheriff of Wake county to suspend the sale of property, upon which he had levied, until the motion was heard.\u201d\nHis Honor granted an order to the Sheriff to suspend the sale from day to day until the hearing, when the following facts were found:\n1. That the defendant, George Little, made to the plaintiff his promissory note on the 10th day of April, 1874, for the principal sum of two hundred dollars, with interest at eight per cent, payable one d; y after date.\n2. That a summons w\u00ed s issued by a Justice of the Peace, against the defendant on the 18th day of April,-1874, who accepted service and confessed judgment on the same day, according to specialty filed. That said judgment was stayed by giving the defendant, IIe ry Mordccai as surety. .\n3. That a transcript of said judgment was sent up to the Superior Court and docketed on the 19th of June, 1875. Said docket shows that the judgment was for two hundred dollars, and interest from the 10th day of April, 1874, at 8 per cent. The transcript is for two hundred dollars, and interest from the 10th of April, 1874.\n4. The execution issued by the Superior Court Clerk on the 19th day of June, 1875, was for the principal sum of two hundred dollars, with interest from the 10th day of April, 1874, at 8 per cent.\nUpon these facts his Honor refused the motion, and thereupon the defendants appealed.\nJones (\u00c9 Jones, for the appellants.\nA. M. Lewis, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 267
}