{
  "id": 8691120,
  "name": "Arthur Morrow et al. v. William Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morrow v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1831-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "265",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 263"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 263"
    }
  ],
  "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 wl. 185",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_west",
      "reporter": "WL",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Hawks 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11277710
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/10/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Mur. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/6/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11973383,
        11973452,
        11973581,
        11973521,
        6100735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0182-01",
        "/nc/3/0182-02",
        "/nc/3/0182-04",
        "/nc/3/0182-03",
        "/tenn/5/0414-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 3598,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.389,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8010874304498706e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8368350818908747
    },
    "sha256": "52ce7179bf7774cccc97fb87ef7917f5954431ad5cb3bfa9c326dea0a445a9a2",
    "simhash": "1:efe2f95d0eda0b00",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Morrow et al. v. William Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hair, Judge.\nSeveral valid objections occur to the claim of the plaintiffs.\nThe *s\u2019 ^iac ^16 gift is not established by a deed, or in its absence by evidence of a delivery ; the writing hiti'oduced and relied upon, not being under seal, is nothing more than the declaration of Jemima Bradshaw, ^at sjie g.m, t}ie neg1>0 to her daughter and soii-in-law: but there having been no delivery, no title vested in them, and there being no valuable consideration, no right of property passed from her.\nAnother objection is, that supposing this writing conveyed the title of the negro, only a remainder is given by the donor, after the expiration of her own life. She gives the negro in appropriate words enough, but adds these words, \u201c to enjoy full power.-and possession of after my death\u201d Now it has been held in repeated decisions, that such a remainder in personal chattels cannot be created jjy (Gilbert v. Murdock, 2 Hay. 182. Nichols v. Cartwright, 2 Mur. 137. Graham v. Graham, 2 Hawks Sutton v. Hollowell, ante 2 vol. 185. Foscue v. Foscue, 3 Hawks 538.) The doctrine may therefore be \"*** \u2022 set*\u201c-\nBut laying these objections out of the case, another might be taken. If the title to the negro passed by the writing, it vested in Jemima and Arthur Morrow, and hot in theii> children. A use only was declared to them, and they ought not to be plaintiffs. The record shows, that a motion was made to amend the writ by striking out, probably to remedy that mistake. But it does not appear what became of it.\nThese objections arise upon the record, and appear to me to be fatal. I therefore think judgment should be given for the defendant.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment appirmer.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hair, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston and W. Jl. Graham, for the. plaintiffs.",
      "No counsel appeared for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Morrow et al. v. William Williams.\nA remainder n chattels, after a life estate, cannot be created by deed.\nDetinue for a slave, tried on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Norwood. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case :\nJemima Bradshaw, on the 3,0th of December, 1820, signed an' instrument of which the following is a copy :\n\u201c To ail people to whom these presents s hall come : I \" Jemima Bradshaw, for and in consideration of the na- \u201d tural love and affection, which I have and bear to my >ji beloved son-in-law Arthur Morrow, and my daughter \u201c Jemima Morrow, and for divers other good considerations mo hereunto moving, have given and granted, \u201c and by these presents do give and grant unto the said *s Arthur and Jemima Morrow, my negro boy Abraham,\u201d &c. ( mentioning several articles of personal property ) iL to their use, and to use singularly to them, and the \u201c children of Jemima Morrow, that she may have by her \u00a3t said husband, to enjoy full power and possession of after my death, to have and to hold and enjoy all and sin-Yoi,, III. 34 \u201c gularly tbe said negro boy Mraham See. unto the said \u201c Mraham and Jemima and their Children. In witness \u201c whereof &c.\nA gift of slaves made by an in-der-e^Tand nn-accomp\u00e1nied by delivery, is void.\nThe cases of dodt, ffa$. 183,) Nichols v. Car/wns'/it, (2 Mur. l \u00b6) Ora-\u00a3\u00a3\u00a35&5 Foseuev.Foscue, Button v3ffottow ell, Kmiie 2 wl. 185\u2019) apProve<i'\nJemima Bradshaw.\n\u201c Signed in presence of &c.\u201d\nThe plaintiffs were the wife of Morrow, and the children born at the date of the paper above set forth.\nThe plaintiffs moved to amend the writ, but his Honor being of opinion that they could not recover upon the merits, did not notice the motion. The verdict being set aside and a nonsuit entered, the plaintiffs appealed.\nWinston and W. Jl. Graham, for the. plaintiffs.\nNo counsel appeared for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 271
}