{
  "id": 11275360,
  "name": "Rambaut, Gernon & Co. v. Mayfield & Davis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rambaut v. Mayfield",
  "decision_date": "1820-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "85",
  "last_page": "86",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hawks 85"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. 85"
    }
  ],
  "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": 184,
    "char_count": 1925,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.368,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.463399610148834e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9455153563006955
    },
    "sha256": "ad5d1e81dc0d795314497b928548ada37f788f77c785b79fad008065a3fc283c",
    "simhash": "1:08515a1fad4fc4e9",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:01.842322+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Murpiiet, Judge, sat for Henderson, Judge, in this ease."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Rambaut, Gernon & Co. v. Mayfield & Davis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "And for these reasons,\nPer Curiam,\nthe bill, was dismissed with costs i but without prejudice to Complainants\u201d bringing another suit.\nMurpiiet, Judge, sat for Henderson, Judge, in this ease.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rambaut, Gernon & Co. v. Mayfield & Davis.\nFrom Warren.\nIN EQUITY.\nR. being a creditor of D. by bond, files his bill against D. & M. charging that D. had fraudulently conveyed property to 11. sufficient to pay his debt, and praying a discovery, account and satisfaction. Hill dismissed upon hearing,because R. had not reduced his debt to a judgment, and actually issued execution*.\nThe bill charged that the Defendant, Davis, was indebted to the Complainants in a large sum, by bond, that was then fully due, and after the said debt was contracted and had fallen due, the said Defendant had conveyed all his real and personal estate, and assigned choses in action to Mayfield, the other Defendant, fraudulently, and to a much larger amount than would discharge Complainants\u2019 demand, and that Davis owned all the said property at the time they trusted him, \u2014 and prayed for k discovery and an account, and that they might be paid their debt out of the estates and effects so conveyed and assigned to Mayjield.\nBoth Defendants answered, and denied the fraud j and. tj,ie cause, being set down for hearing after testimony taken, was transferred to this Court for tria!.\nUpon the hearing, it was now, by Mordecai, for the Defendants, objected, that Complainants co\u00fcld get no relief upon this bill, as it appeared that they were creditors of Davis by bond only. Before they can come here even for discovery, they must reduce their debt to a judgment and take out execution, so that it may appear, in that way, that the debt is just and that satisfaction cannot be otherwise had from Davis: And to that effect, he cited the cases of Angel v. Draper, Sherly v. Watts, and Hendricks v Robinson.\n1 Vern. 399.\n3 Atk. 200.\n2 John. Ch. Rep. 296."
  },
  "file_name": "0085-01",
  "first_page_order": 91,
  "last_page_order": 92
}