{
  "id": 8690503,
  "name": "JACOB PARKER, Admr. (with will annexed) v. P. C. SHUFORD, Admr",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parker v. Shuford",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "219",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 219"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955317
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N. C. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693286
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/73/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones, 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086734
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727369
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/26/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955317
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N. C. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693286
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/73/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones, 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086734
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0493-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 4229,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.1376707990148894e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8616847932060904
    },
    "sha256": "265dc8b9ba5b89d15ebcf5c550d843b721f589ff63fa1cd454710a8e7d37dce7",
    "simhash": "1:a97ff01f3fc84d3e",
    "word_count": 750
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JACOB PARKER, Admr. (with will annexed) v. P. C. SHUFORD, Admr"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nTo take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitation there must be an express promise to pay, or an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt from which a promise to pay may be implied.\nThe plaintiff does not controvert that \u2019principle, but he insists that there was an express promise here in this; that the defendant offered to pay the plaintiff' in depreciated cur-' rency which the plaintiff refused to take.\nIt is expressly decided in Simonton v. Clark, 65 N. C. 525, that that is not sufficient.\nThe plaintiff further insists that when the defendant and others, partners, settled up their partnership the defendant agreed with his copartners that he would.pay the plaintiff\u2019s claim and took effects of the partnership with which to pay it. .\nAnd that raises the question whether the promise to pay, or the acknowledgment of the subsisting debt must be to the creditor himself, or whether it is sufficient if made to a third person ? Ye are of the opinion that it must be made to the creditor himself. Thompson v. Gilreath, 3 Jones, 493 ; Morehead v. Wriston, 73 N. C. 398.\nUpon this point the decisions are not uniform; and Mr. Greenleaf says that an acknowledgment to a stranger is sufficient. The tendency of late decisions is probably that it must be to the creditor himself. In Ringo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 540, the subject is very well treated and it is held that it must be to the creditor.\nBut the subject has been fully considered in this Court in the case cited above, Thompson v. Gilreath, 3 Jones, 493, and expressly decided that it must be to the creditor' himself, and we willingly follow that 'case and refer to it for all that could be said here.\nThere is no error.\nPeR Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs Scott Caldwell, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. JR. F. Armfield said. M. L McCor/de, for defendant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JACOB PARKER, Admr. (with will annexed) v. P. C. SHUFORD, Admr\nPraetiee \u2014 Statute of limitations.\n1. To take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations, the promise to pay or the acknowledgment of the debt must be made to the creditor himself.\n2. A tender of depreciated currency will not prevent the operation of the statute.\n((.Simonton v. Clark, G5 N. C. 525; Thompson v. G-ilreath, 3 Jones, 493 ; '\u25a0 Morehead v. Wrist on, 73 N. G. 398, cited and approved.)\nCivil ActioN, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Hedele Superior Court, before Buxton, J.\nThis suit was commenced in the lifetime of John J. Shuford the intestate of defendant. The plaintiff alleged that his testator John Miller loaned to the firm of Clark, Shuford & Co., of which John J. Shuford was a member, the sum of $1,624 and took their note for the same, dated January 30th, 1858, and that thereafter (March 1, 1862,) upon settlement of the 'firm business, the intestate of defendant took possession of certain partnership effects under an agreement in writing with his partners -that he was to pay certain debts, the claim of the testator of plaintiff being one of them, and that said John J. Shuford had repeatedly recognized the existence and validity of said debt and had promised to pay the same to said John Miller on 1st March, 1862.\nThe defendant denied that he ever promised to pay the debt as aforesaid, or that he was indebted to plaintiff. ITe alleged that said note which was executed by said firm was not under seal and that plaintiff did not commence the suit within three years from the time the cause of action arose and that the same was barred by the statute of limitations.\nUpon the evidence in the case issues were submitted to the jury and found as follows :\nFindings of the Jury: 1. John J. Shuford executed the paper writing or agreement with his partner in March, 1862.\n2. Intestate of defendant did not tender or canse to be tendered after March, 1862,' money of any kind to plaintiff\u2019s testator to pay the debt sued for.\n3. The dissolution of the partnership of Clark, Shuford & Co. did not take place in March, 1862. nor were the effects divided.\nThereupon the defendant moved for judgment for costs, which motion was allowed and the plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs Scott Caldwell, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. JR. F. Armfield said. M. L McCor/de, for defendant,\ncited Morehcad v. Wriston, 73 N. C. 398 ; Thompson v. Gil-reath, 3 Jones, 493 ; C. C. P. ch. 17, \u00a7 51, and Simonton v. Clark, 65 N. C. 525."
  },
  "file_name": "0219-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 233
}