{
  "id": 8682772,
  "name": "ADRIAN & VOLLERS v. R. T. SCANLIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Adrian & Vollers v. Scanlin",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "317",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 317"
    }
  ],
  "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": 217,
    "char_count": 3396,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.662170294177528e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5285103494450835
    },
    "sha256": "4d430bcdfa82d294d6fcc0e7a5f4e19c71eb0dd6048ad62ea085fd5d1ef1c526",
    "simhash": "1:3bc9eb109e6ff3a9",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ADRIAN & VOLLERS v. R. T. SCANLIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe question is, whether bail in a civil action is exonerated by the fact that the principal is indicted, convicted and imprisoned for a crime,subsequent to the date of the bail\u2019s undertaking, without regard to the fact that the term of imprisonment had expired before judgment in the civil action against the bail.\nFormerly when the. Sheriff returned upon a sci. fa. in a civil case, that\u2018the principal was in prison by virtue of any process, civil or criminal, and the principal was then actually in prison, this should, if then pleaded by the bail, be deemed a surrender of the principal and a discharge of the bail. Rev. Code, ch. 11, \u00a7 7. Our present statute is substantially the same and must have the same construction. It provides that \u201cthe bail may be exonerated either by the death of the. defendant, or his imprisonment in a State prison, or by his legal discharge from his obligation to render himself amenable to the process, or by his surrender to the Sheriff of the County where he was arrested in execution thereof, at any time before final judgment against the bail.\u201d C. C. P. \u00a7 161.\nThe defendant insists that the imprisonment of the principal had precisely the same effect as his death would have had. We do not think so. The statute does not mean that the bail shall be exonerated, merely because the principal shall have been put in the prison, but if he shall be-in prison at the time when the bail may be called to surrender- him. '\nNo error.\nPER Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John W. Hinsdale, for plaintiff's.",
      "Messrs. McRae Broadfoot and Guthrie Carr, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ADRIAN & VOLLERS v. R. T. SCANLIN.\nArrest and Bail \u2014 Imprisonment of Principal \u2014 Exoneration of Bail.\nBail, in a civil action, is not exonerated by the fact that the principal is imprisoned for a crime, when the term of imprisonment has expired before judgment against the bail.\nArrest and Bail tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Cumber-LAND Superior Court, before MeKoy, J.\nProceedings in Arrest and Bail were instituted by the plaintiffs against one John X). Jackson, who was arrested, and subsequently \u2014 on the 16th of April, 1870, \u2014 discharged from arrest upon an undertaking signed by the defendant in this action. On the 10th of February, 1871, and before final judgment was had against this defendant upon said undertaking, Jackson was convicted of larceny in Harnett Superior Court, and sentenced to imprisonment in the County jail for one year. On the 20th of November, 1871, judgment was rendered in Cumberland in the action by Adrian & Vollers against Jackson for $348.87. On the 13th of February, 1872, execution issued against the property of the defendant, and the return thereon was \u201cnothing to be found.\u201d On the 29th' of October, 1872, execution issued against the person of the defendant and returned \u201cnot to be found,\u201d nor has Jackson rendered himself .amenable thereto. On the 25th of April, 1873, this action was brought against the defendant Scanlin\", the obligor in the undertaking.\nUpon the trial, the defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury that the plain tiffs could not recover, because the bail had been exonerated by the arrest and imprisonment of the principal (Jackson) before final judgment against the bail. His Honor declined to give the instruction and the defendant excepted. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nMr. John W. Hinsdale, for plaintiff's.\nMessrs. McRae Broadfoot and Guthrie Carr, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0317-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 333
}