{
  "id": 8682808,
  "name": "RICHARD C. WINDLEY v. THOMAS D. BRADWAY and SARAH A. PETITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Windley v. Bradway",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "333",
  "last_page": "334",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 333"
    }
  ],
  "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": "71 N. C. 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0209-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.330432482466184e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7910094372297382
    },
    "sha256": "d111f00726de06e2dceddc51e3c9fd6bbcbc358caff62260b8acdbd9a1d73a15",
    "simhash": "1:e6da591834883b57",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD C. WINDLEY v. THOMAS D. BRADWAY and SARAH A. PETITT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nSpiers v. Halstead, Haines & Co., 71 N. C. 209, is decisive of this case. To support an attachment against the property of the defendant it should appear by affidavit, not only that the defendant is not a resident of this State, but that he has property within the State, C, C. P. \u00a7 83.\nIn this case the affidavit states only the non-i\u2019esidence of the defendants, and does not state that they have property within the State.\nIt is true that the order of publication and the warrant of attachment both recite that the affidavit does aver that the defendants have property in the State; but then there is the affidavit to speak for itself, and it is for the Court to see that it avers no such thing.\nAgain, the plaintiff says that there might have been an unwritten affidavit which warranted the aforesaid recitals. If that were so, still, an unwritten affidavit would not support the attachment; or rather it is more proper to say,that there is no such thing as an unwritten affidavit. An affidavit is a \u2018\u2018 sworn statement in writing.5' Bouvier and Webster\u2019s Dictionaries. Therefore the affidavit in the record is our guide, and that is insufficient.\nThere is error. The motion to vacate the attachment ought to have been allowed, and it is allowed.\nPee CubiaM. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Geo. H. Brown, Jr., and John A. Moore, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Busbee Bushee, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD C. WINDLEY v. THOMAS D. BRADWAY and SARAH A. PETITT.\nAttachment \u2014 Affidavit\u2014 Sufficiency of.\nAn affidavit upon which a warrant of attachment is based must be in writing, and must show that the defendant is \u201c a non-resident and has property in this State.\u201d\n(Spiers v. Halstead, Haines Sf Go., 71 N. 0. 209, cited and approved.)\nMOTION to vacate an Order of Attachment, heard at Chambers on the 21st of December, 1876, before Moore, J.\nThe only point decided in this Court is, as to the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the proceeding was based.\nThe motion was disallowed by the Court below, and the defendants appealed.\nMessrs. Geo. H. Brown, Jr., and John A. Moore, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Busbee Bushee, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0333-01",
  "first_page_order": 347,
  "last_page_order": 348
}