{
  "id": 8650034,
  "name": "JOHN A. BOGGAN v. CALVIN HORNE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boggan v. Horne",
  "decision_date": "1887-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "268",
  "last_page": "271",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.C. 268"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 N. C., 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695435
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/87/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278410
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ired., 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684282
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/30/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N. C., 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695435
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/87/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278410
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 4783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.981493741377787e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7406402844335712
    },
    "sha256": "3b083af3ce59ba5a28aaa2074cc0802e529c7c621639c1f705c61482a774936a",
    "simhash": "1:3e6105887c8cdce9",
    "word_count": 843
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:12.215141+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN A. BOGGAN v. CALVIN HORNE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nThis action is to recover possession of a bale-of cotton, a horse, and a wagon, claimed under a chattel mortgage made by the defendant to the plaintiff, in Jan-ary, 1882, to secure a note of $75., due on the 1st day of October thereafter. The property is described in the deed as a \u201c one-horse wagon, one gray horse, and all my crops of every kind, raised by me during the year 1882,\u201d of which the bale claimed formed a part. Under the auxiliary process of claim and delivery, provided in The Code, \u00a7331 and following, the articles were seized by the sheriff and delivered to the plaintiff, who sold them and appropriated the proceeds to his own use.\nIt is unnecessary to advert to the pleadings, further than to say that the defendant alleged that he had paid the secured debt and discharged the mortgage. The jury upon issues submitted to them say: (1) That the plaintiff is not-entitled to any of the goods seized; (2) that the defendant-did not wrongfully detain them; and (3), that the value of the cotton is $42.50, of the horse $25, of the wagon $22.50; and that, (4), the compromise and settlement set out in the \u25a0complaint, as entered into since the commencement of the .action, was not made.\nUpon the trial the plaintiff took two exceptions to evidence offered and admitted against his objection.\n1 Ex. The defendant in his testimony said: \u201cThe horse was worth about $75,\u201d and that he \u201cgave that for him.\u201d The exception is to the latter part of the statement.\nIf authority were necessary, our own ruling upon the \u25a0competency of such evidence in the case of McPeters v. Ray, 85 N. C., 462, disposes of the question, and we may consider that as an estimate of value, and not an opinion expressed. The actual purchase at the price is an act done in pursuance \u25a0of an opinion and imparts greater force to it. In Small v. Pool, 8 Ired., 47, it was held competent to prove what the plaintiff gave, and what he sold an alleged unsound slave for, in estimating damages in an action of deceit.\n2. In the course of the defendant\u2019s examination on his own behalf, a book was produced and identified as belonging to the defendant, (who could not read), in which were entered advances made to the defendant, some of them in the plaintiff\u2019s own handwriting. The items in the book were read, the plaintiff objecting to any of them going to the jury not written down by himself. This was during the examination \u2022of the defendant, a witness for himself, and he testified that he \u201c kept this book for the law. Some things plaintiff put down on it himself. As to the others, plaintiff gave defendant orders, and told him to tell the clerk to put the things down when defendant got them, and the cleric did put them \u25a0down when the defendant got them, and this book contains all that -defendant got.\u201d\nAgain he repeats, \u201c this book contains everything defendant got from plaintiff,\u201d reiterating the manner in which the entries were made by merchants who filled the orders. Certainly this meets the objection, for the fact of the receiving these advances by the defendant, and that they are all that were made bjr the plaintiff, of which the entries were memoranda to preserve their accuracy, is sworn to and proved independently; such evidence is clearly proper, and the exception to the ruling untenable.\nThe error assigned in the motion for a new trial \u201c in instructions to the jury \u201d is in terms too vague to be entertained. The assignment should specifically point out wherein the erroneous charge consists; and this rule of practice has been often asserted and its observance required. Bost v. Bost, 87 N. C., 477.\nThere is no error and the judgment must be affirmed.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. A. W Haywood, for the plaintiff.",
      "Mr. John D. Shaw, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN A. BOGGAN v. CALVIN HORNE.\nEvidence \u2014 Judge\u2019s Charge.\n'1. Where the question in issue is the value of a horse, the plaintiff may testify what he gave for the horse, as the actual purchase at the price is an act done in pursuance of an opinion, and gives greater force to it.\n2. Where a book containing entries not in the plaintiff\u2019s handwriting is offered by the defendant, the evidence is competent when the defendant testifies that the entries were made by persons from, whom he got the merchandise, under instructions from the plaintiff, and when he further testifies that the book contains everything he got from the plaintiff.\n3. Where any part of the Judge\u2019s charge is excepted to, the exception should point out specifically wherein the error consists.\n(.McPeters v. Bay, 85 N. C., 462; Bost v. Bost, 87 N. C., 477; cited and approved).\nCivil action, tried before MacRae, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1885, of Anson Superior Court.\nThere was a judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.\nMr. A. W Haywood, for the plaintiff.\nMr. John D. Shaw, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0268-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 295
}