{
  "id": 11275100,
  "name": "The State Bank of North-Carolina v. Clark & M'Neil",
  "name_abbreviation": "State Bank of North-Carolina v. Clark",
  "decision_date": "1820-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "36",
  "last_page": "37",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hawks 36"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. 36"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 John. Rep. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2129872
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/3/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2120,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.429,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.069114476767795e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9084398356815397
    },
    "sha256": "c833990b5157dcc99704e67bbf10cfc782e55c1a75edc16ebf279ca4666b844b",
    "simhash": "1:942f81c2ee28a6ee",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:01.842322+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State Bank of North-Carolina v. Clark & M\u2019Neil."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The opinion of the Court was delivered by\nTavxor, Chief-Justice.\nThe acceptance and payment of a check is prima fade evidence, that the Plaintiffs had in deposit money of the .Defendants wherewith to pay it $ and if the fact were not so. it is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to prove by the state of the accounts, that the Defendants have over-drawn. But that cannot be shewn by the books mf the bank, which is only a private corporation, and they \u00e1re inadmissible in favor of the Plaintiffs.\nThe judgment below is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tavxor, Chief-Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Muffin, for the Defendants,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State Bank of North-Carolina v. Clark & M\u2019Neil.\nFrom Cumberland.\nAcceptance and payment of a check is prima facie evidence, that the acceptor had the necessary funds of the drawer: and it is incumbent on the former to shew that he had not.\nThe State Bank of North-Carolina is a mere private corporation :\nHence, the books of accounts kept by the bank, of the dealings between it and a customer, are not evidence for the bank in a suit between it and the customer.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received, and money laid out and expended, to the use of the Defendants. Upon the trial, the facts were, that the Defendants, being\u2019 merchants at Fayetteville, were customers of. the branch bank at that place, and kept large deposits, for which they had drawn checks from time to time, that had been honored and paid. The checks were produced in Court by the Plaintiffs, and admitted by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs further alleged, that those checks were for larger sums than had been deposited, and that Defendants had over-drawn. To prove that fact, they offered to give in evidence the books of accounts kept at the bank with the Defendants, whereby it would appear, that their deposits did not equal the amount of the checks, by the sum of three thousand dollars, and upwards. The Court rejected the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs moved for a rule for a new trial; which was refused by the Court, and an appeal taken to this Court.\nMuffin, for the Defendants,\ncited Peake\u2019s Evid. 91, 231. Doug. 593, note. 3 John. Rep. 226."
  },
  "file_name": "0036-01",
  "first_page_order": 42,
  "last_page_order": 43
}