{
  "id": 8697657,
  "name": "HENRY W. FAISON v. H. BOWDEN, Executor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faison v. Bowden",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 425"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 N. C. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696970
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2743,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.543179636792172e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6733438899333514
    },
    "sha256": "b501a00835fef115ceefbb6f9076ca7c602a0a38ed8ef4d00abfd6503b26a86b",
    "simhash": "1:a045b8d07924f915",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY W. FAISON v. H. BOWDEN, Executor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThis case was before us and is reported in 72 N. C. 405. It wras held that the acknowledgment of the debt was too vague and indefinite to take the case out of the \u25a0operation of the statute of limitations. The acknowledgment now is a little different from what it was then, but it is still liable to the same objection.\nThe acknowledgment relied upon now is, \u201cI owe Dr. Fai-son a considerable sum \u2014 $1,000 or $1,200, and I reckon more, and I want it paid. Dr. Eaison is not uneasy about it.\u201d Now what did he owe him about ? He does not say. Probably it was for medical services; it may have been for a tract of land ; it was probably an account; it may have been a bond. No paper was shown or referred to. No-amount was fixed; probably it was $1,000; it may have been $1,200 ; it was claimed to have been more than $1,900.\nThe evil of allowing vague acknowledgments or careless, promises and these dependent upon the memory of witnesses-to bring to life a debt which was dead, has been remedied, none too soon, by a statute which requires all such acknowledgments and promises to be in writing. But that statute was subsequent to this claim and does not affect it.\nThere is another objection which is fatal to the plaintiff; the acknowledgment was not made to the plaintiff, but to a stranger.\nVe have decided at this time in Parker, Adm\u2019r. v. Shuford, Adm\u2019r. that the acknowledgment or promise must be to-the creditor himself. See that case and the authorities them cited, which it is unnecessary to repeat.\nThere is error.\nPer Curiam. Venire de novo..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Smith Strong and S. F. Grainger, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Battle Mordecai and J. L. Stewart, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY W. FAISON v. H. BOWDEN, Executor.\nStatute of Limitations \u2014 New Pomise.\n1. An acknowledgment of a debt, barred by the statute of limitations, in the following language, viz : \u201cI owe A a considerable sum, $1,000 or :$1.,200, and I reckon more, and I want it paid. A is not uneasy about it,\u201d is not sufficient to take the case out of the operation of the statute.\n:2. An acknowledgment or promise in order to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations, must be made to the creditor himself. '\n\u2019(Parker, Adm\u2019r. v. Shnford, Adm'r. ante 219, cited and approved.)\nCivil AotioN, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of WayNE Supe-Tior Court, before Seymour, J.\nThe suit was brought to recover the amount of a medical \u25a0bill against the testator of defendant, running from 1854 to 1861. The defendant relied on the statute of limitations. {See 72 N. C. 405.)\nITis Honor held that the statute was no bar to any part of plaintiff's claim. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nMessrs. Smith Strong and S. F. Grainger, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Battle Mordecai and J. L. Stewart, for defendant.\nFaircloth, J. being of counsel in the Court below did not sit at the hearing of this case."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 438
}