{
  "id": 11276649,
  "name": "Wilson v. Simonton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. Simonton",
  "decision_date": "1821-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "482",
  "last_page": "482",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hawks 482"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. 482"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Murph. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684169
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/6/0041-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.402,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.453686365303836e-08,
      "percentile": 0.517265485362274
    },
    "sha256": "13a6b2f971c20d1aab0118b555c9538229aef05845b28a7dbec175326b14bdab",
    "simhash": "1:dae3b5f01be72567",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:01.842322+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wilson v. Simonton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe question made in this case, was decided in 1811, on argument and consideration, in the case of Keddie v, Moore, (2 Murph. 41,) and we see no reason to disapprove the judgment. There must be judgment for the Defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wilson v. Simonton.\nFrom Iredell.\nThe act of Assembly, increasing- the jurisdiction of a justice of tin-peace to $100, is not inconsistent or incompatible with the Const! \u25a0 tution of the State.\nThis was an action of debt originally brought in Ire-dell County Court for twenty-five dollars, to which Defendant pleaded in abatement, pursuant to the act of 1820, there was a demurrer to the plea. Demurrer overruled, and plea sustained. The Superior Court, on appeal, also overruled the demurrer, and sustained the plea; and Plaintiff, by his appeal, presented the question to this Court.\nBe it enacted, &c. that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace within this Slate be, and is hereby extended to all sums due on bonds, notes, and liquidated .accounts, not exceeding one hundred dollars.\nBe it enacted, &c. that all-suits hereafter commenced in the Superior or County Courts in this State, on any! .bond, promissory note, or liquidated account, for a less sum than one hundred dollars, shall be abated on the plea of the Defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0482-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 486
}