{
  "id": 12152369,
  "name": "Taylor vs. Tolwin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Tolwin",
  "decision_date": "1793",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 218"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 218"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "C.C.D.N.C.",
    "id": 17319,
    "name": "United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1916,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "fa847d8fdbce393f35b4ba6eb778fd66c4de4b42c7f06a9fa0a8f0121924cba0",
    "simhash": "1:adbc4c54934652a8",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Taylor vs. Tolwin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The court\ninsisted on this, for it is ravishment of the wife of another, which can but be felony. 4 Rep. p. 16. Davies' case, where there was only a colloquium, but no conclusion of marriage. Bendl. 128. Roll. 373. Palm. 385.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "The court"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones, J.",
      "Goldsmith, pro defendente.",
      "Sed non allocatur."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Taylor vs. Tolwin.\nMich. 3 Car.\nTHE plaintiff brought his action for the following words: will you cast away your daughter on Taylor? to which the father of the girl replied why? and the defendant added: It is as true as any thing that he ravished Frank's wife, innuendo &c. And you had better follow your daughter to the gallows, than bestow her on him. The plaintiff declared that there was a communication between the father of the girl and himself, touching a marriage between him and her, and then on account of these words he lost his marriage, to his damage, &c. The defendant pleaded non culp. and there was a verdict for the plaintiff with \u00a3 200 damage. Now a motion was made in arrest of judgment.\n1. A man cannot have an action for losing his marriage, as a woman can. For she transit in familiam viri, and is advanced thereby. But the man is the head of the family.\nSed non allocatur, for he is damaged by the loss of his marriage.\nJones, J.\nLet us divide the case. 1. Whether the words are actionable by themselves? 2. Admitting they are not, whether they are so, on account of the consequence?\nGoldsmith, pro defendente.\nWords ought to be taken civiliter and not criminaliter and in mitiori sensu, as thou hast burnt my barn; it shall not be intended of a harm adjoining a house, and therefore the action does not lie. A woman may be ravished without carnal knowledge; and it is no felony.\nCuria. The action lies.\n2. It is not alledged that there was a conclusion, but only a communication of marriage, &c. and not with the daughter, but with the father.\nSed non allocatur.\nFor the plaintiff fays that by these words he lost his marriage.\nThe plaintiff had judgment nisi, &c."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 368
}