{
  "id": 8691087,
  "name": "JESSE E. FRALEY v. JAMES A. KELLY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fraley v. Kelly",
  "decision_date": "1878-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.C. 348"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 N. C. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688950
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N. C. 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092649
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0078-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688950
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N. C. 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092649
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0078-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4732648505762305
    },
    "sha256": "d96c95e6cca486a4992fcaa4a53c974cc635bebc011c2b4326c7684604bfe69b",
    "simhash": "1:0f10c2a7884bbfdb",
    "word_count": 400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:15:31.489401+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JESSE E. FRALEY v. JAMES A. KELLY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaircloth, J.\nThe defendant being indebted to the plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt, and the plaintiff brings this action for the same debt, and declares on -a new promise. The plaintiff testified that after the adjudication in bankruptcy he presented his note to defendant and he said: \u201c Your debt and Mose Wagoner\u2019s I will pay if I live.\u201d He also testified that on another occasion defendant said to him: \u201c Count the interest on the note and add the principal and send it to me at Raleigh, and I will make a draw and send you the money, for the note.\u201d There were some other conversations between them, and it was in evidence that the defendant was solvent before the commencement of this action.\nThis issue was submitted to the jury: \u201c Did the defendant, after he went into bankruptcy and before he obtained his discharge, make an unconditional and unequivocal promise to pay the debt he; owed the plaintiff ?\u201d to which the jury responded, \u201c Yes.\u201d\nThis finding would seem to leave no question in dispute. We have said several times that the defendant is liable on \"the new promise under such circumstances. Fraley v. Kelly, 67 N. C., 78; Hornthal v. McRae, 67 N. C., 21; Henly v. Lanier, 75 N. C., 172; Randige v. Lyman, Sup. Judl. Court of Mass., March, 1878.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaircloth, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "'Mr. W. II. Bailey, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. J. E. Brown, and J. M. Clement, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JESSE E. FRALEY v. JAMES A. KELLY.\nNew Promise by Bankrupt.\nThe defendant, who had been adjudged a bankrupt but not discharged, said to the plaintiff, to whom he was indebted before his bankruptcy: \u201c Your debt I will pay if I live and again, \u2014 Count the interest on the note and add the principal, and send it to me at Raleigh, and I will make a draw and send you the money for the note HeldT that the jury were justified in finding thereupon a new and unconditional assumption of the old debt, entitling the plaintiff to recover, notwithstanding the bankruptcy.-\n(Fraley v. Kelly, 67 N. C. 78; Hornthal v. McRae, Ib. 21; Henly v. Lanier, 75 N. C. 172, cited and approved.)\nCivil ActioN, tried at January Special Term, 1878, of RowaN Superior Court, before Kerr, J.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\n'Mr. W. II. Bailey, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. J. E. Brown, and J. M. Clement, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 364,
  "last_page_order": 365
}