{
  "id": 8682991,
  "name": "LEVI MORPHEW v. JOSEPH TATEM and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morphew v. Tatem",
  "decision_date": "1883-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. 183"
    }
  ],
  "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": 150,
    "char_count": 1705,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.375,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30208653091357834
    },
    "sha256": "38b466d50b488d5b3160703f3bb00f7b7f7e5c28d652bb0dfd8f4d9738cc0b6c",
    "simhash": "1:5321ae90e122627a",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:46.148190+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEVI MORPHEW v. JOSEPH TATEM and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerriMON, J.\nThe plaintiff appellee moves to dismiss the appeal because the surety to the undertaking has not made affidavit as required by The Code, \u00a75G0, that he is worth double the sum of money specified in the undertaking.\nIt appears that the surety made no affidavit at all, but one Dauiel Dougherty made affidavit \u201cthat the surety and principal in the above bond (referring to the undertaking) are worth fifty dollars above their debts and exemptions, according to reputation.\nThe statute requires that the surety shall make the affidavit. He is presumed to know his pecuniary and property circumstances better than any one else, and ought to make the affidavit.\nBut if another can be allowed to do so, the affidavit in this case is insufficient. The affiant does not swear that he knows the circumstances of the surety at all; he swears to \u201creputation.\u201d This is not a compliance with the statute in form or substance. The intent of the statute is to serve a substantial purpose, and we cannot undertake to impair its force and effect by giving it a construction prompted by a desire to relieve negligent appellants.\nThe motion to dismiss the appeal must be allowed. It is so ordered.\nPer C\u00fcRfAM. Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerriMON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. J. W. Todd aud J. F. Morphew, for plaintiff\u2019.",
      "Messrs. Q. F. Need and R. Z. Finney, for def\u00e9ndants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEVI MORPHEW v. JOSEPH TATEM and others.\nAppeal Bond, justification of.\nThe justification of a surety toan undertaking on appeal, must be made by the surety himself. The affidavit of another as to the pecuniary reputation of the surety will not answer the demands of the law. See preceding ease.\n\u25a0 MotioN to dismiss an appeal heard at October Term, 1883, of The SupreME Court.\nMessrs. J. W. Todd aud J. F. Morphew, for plaintiff\u2019.\nMessrs. Q. F. Need and R. Z. Finney, for def\u00e9ndants."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 200
}