Superior Court of North Carolina Court Cases

  1. Stanly v. . Kean (1799)

    This was an ejectment, brought to recover a lot which Mrs. Stanly claimed as heiress to Fonville. The defendant set up a title under the will of Fonville, a copy of which he offered in evidence, the original having been proved in the county court by two subscribing witnesses, and thereupon admitted to registration. The evidence was objected to on the ground that one of the witnesses was a legatee under the will, which therefore, was irregularly proved; and that it was only in those cases, where [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  2. Cox v. . Jackson (1796)

    The goods are bound from the teste of the writ of execution, but that rule will not apply to the present case. John acted as the agent of his brother, who, having approved of what he did, ratified the transaction abinitio; so that the property of the latter horse passed to George Cox, and not to John, if the first horse really was George's. As to that the Court differed. All the circumstances subsequent to the sale are to be taken into consideration as explanatory of the real state of the

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  3. Anderson's v. . Anderson (1789)

    said he would consider the words in the act of the assembly (1786, 14, 5, 585), "SHALL dismiss," as if they had said "MAY dismiss" — and they were not obliged to dismiss it, and if the plaintiff was ready with his declaration they would not dismiss the cause at the second term.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  4. v. . Beatty (1796)

    The beginning of the last line is not disputed. The only question is where it terminates, and where was the corner made for it. It is (377) proven to have been made at the point of the island, very considerably out of the course of this line, and nearer to the beginning than any part of this line is. We must, in the first place, attend to the rules established by judicial determinations for the settlement of boundary cases, which are, that if a course and distance be called for, terminating at [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  5. Arnold v. . Bell (1796)

    If when an execution is out, and in the sheriff's hands, a man sells any part of his property, and the execution cannot be satisfied without selling that property, it may be sold by the sheriff, and the previous sale will be invalid and void. Here the £ 100 execution was satisfied. Also, if a man be indebted to a larger amount than his property is worth, and he disposes of any part of his property to a child,

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  6. Blount, Ex'r of Ogden v. . Starkey's Adm'r (1799)

    NOTE. — See S. c., reported in 1 N.C.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  7. Campbell v. . Mumford (1796)

    The endorsement made at the same time with the bond is to be taken as a part of the condition (Vide 2 Term, 641; Salk., 498; 6 Mod., 37), and the bond is not assignable. A bond for any specific article is not assignable. Such a bond in the hands of the assignee cannot be sued upon by him. Suppose at the day appointed for payment the defendant had tendered the tobacco, would it not have been a good tender? It certainly would, and would have discharged the debt. Until the day of payment, then, [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  8. Bayard v. . Singleton (1787)

    At May Term, 1786, Nash for the defendant, moved that the suit be dismissed, according to an act of the last session, entitled an act to secure and quiet in their possession all such persons, their heirs and assigns, who have purchased or may hereafter purchase lands and tenements, goods and chattels, which have been sold or may hereafter be sold by commissioners of forfeited estates, legally appointed for that purpose, 1785, 7, 553.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  9. Christmas v. . Campbell (1794)

    The defendant here, it is true, has denied in positive terms that he agreed not to sue this bond; but as to the other part of the bill, stating an agreement by the agent that if the defendants at law should each pay his proportion of $500 before February then next, that execution should be then stayed until they could collect the residue of the debt from their debtors, this he has not positively denied: he says only, he does not believe any such agreement was made; and, indeed, not being [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  10. Witherington v. . Williams (1798)

    The Legislature, in order to make some provision for his family, directed that one hundred pounds should be deposited in the hands of Richard Caswell, to purchase negroes for the widow and children. Two negroes were purchased, one of whom died; the other was given by the defendant, after her marriage with Williams, to her son, the plaintiff's testator.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  11. Anonymous (1799)

    This is an action brought by a British creditor, under the treaty of peace, for a debt contracted in this State before the war, which debt was effectually confiscated by a sovereign power having a right to make the confiscation. A treaty has not the omnipotence attributed to it, that of taking a debt from the State which lawfully belongs to it, or that of recharging a debtor who has actually paid into the treasury under the existing laws, and has procured a discharge agreeably to them before [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  12. Brown v. . Lane (1802)

    NOTE. — On the second point, see Delamothe v. Lanier, 4 N.C. 296.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  13. Stringer v. . Phillis (1802)

    Article XXVI of our Constitution declares all the lands within the bounds of this State to belong to the collective body of the people, making exceptions in favor of those who had already obtained grants from the king or lords proprietors, which exceptions extend only to those who were parties to that instrument — the freemen of North Carolina. All others are out of the exceptions; consequently, all British subjects, and no one who was then a British subject had title to any lands within [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  14. Jeffries v. . Hunt (1800)

    David Jeffries surely was not intended to be disinherited by this will. Another part of the will takes notice that parts of the lands in question, lying on Roanoke River, were devised to him by the clause in question. If he took at all, he took an estate entail male, which by the operation of the act of 1784, ch. 22, is converted into a fee, and descended on his death to his daughters, or went as his will directed.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  15. Cutlar v. . Spiller (1800)

    A conveyance by deed of personals to one for life is a conveyance of the absolute property, generally speaking; but I have great doubts whether the rule applies to slaves as subjects of property.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  16. Strudwick v. . Shaw (1791)

    NOTE. — See this case reported in 2 N.C. 5. Also see Blair v.Miller, 13 N.C. 407; Green v. Harman, 15 N.C. 158; Burton v. Carruth,18 N.C. 2; Carson v. Burnett, ibid., 546; Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N.C. 6;Hoke v. Henderson, ibid., 12; Rogers v. Mabe, 15 N.C. 180; Dobson v.Murphy, 18 N.C. 586; Dobson v. Erwin, 20 N.C. 201; Murray v. Shanklin,ibid., 289; Ross v. Durham, ibid., 54; Tredwell v. Reddick, 23 N.C. 56;Flanniken v. Lee, ibid., 293; Williams v. Buchanan, ibid., 535.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  17. Berry v. . Pulliam (1792)

    Secondly. That the administrator may sue as administrator upon his own possession; and that it is better for him to sue in that manner, because then the judgment affords evidence against him of assets.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  18. Parker v. . Phillips (1796)

    ruled according to the former decisions in Farrell v. Perry, ante, 2;Carter v. Rutland, ante, 97, and Whitmell v. Moore, decided at Edenton, prior to the two others: Where a father, upon the marriage of his daughter, sends negroes or other property with her, upon her marriage, to her husband's house, that it is a gift, unless the contrary be proven: which in the present case not having been done, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  19. Armour v. . White (1798)

    Part of the land in dispute has been in the possession of the defendant for forty years and more, but there is no deed from the ancestors of Armour which includes it, nor is there a deed from any other person that does. The act of limitations can never ripen such a possession into title; the act gives that effect to possessions which are taken and kept with a reasonable ground of belief that the lands so possessed do belong to the possessor, as by some deed or the like from some person having a [...]

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina
  20. Anonymous (1797)

    The matter was again moved now and argued, and the Court clearly agreed that it was a part of the process to bring the defendant into court, without which he could not be effectually brought in; and, therefore, it was for the plaintiff's benefit as much as the subpoena was, and, therefore, that he should pay the expense of it under the decree.

    Court: Superior Court of North Carolina

1 of 42 Page(s)

  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5