{
  "id": 8683564,
  "name": "Arrington v. Arrington",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arrington v. Arrington",
  "decision_date": "1789-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "1",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 1"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        11982610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. Rep 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Rep",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 1802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.38,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.971166085382516e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3715807369464397
    },
    "sha256": "2eced4c78acd6545f5f1ecf8440d97524d3c902b1d37d5333b6539cce3b27976",
    "simhash": "1:d7e6ab3e9b6ecce2",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arrington v. Arrington."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Note.-Quere de hoc. Actual delivery is necessary,notfor identity, but to obviate the objection of nudum pt.cium A gift accompanied with a delivery of possession, is a contract executed ; but if there be no actual delivery, the contract, if gilt, would be executory, and could not be enforced .without a sufficient consideration. Vide 2 Black. Com. 441. Bullock v. Tinnen & wife, 2 Car. Law Rep 271 Picot, adm\u2019r of Legget v. Sanderson. 1 Dev. Rep 309. The only case winch seems contra, is in Brookes\u2019s Abridg. Trespass, 303, cited in Picot v. Sanderson; butthatcase turned upon the qtusii.n whether Trover or Trespass could be maintained upon a general property without actual possession ,- and it may be presumed, that the word \u201c gives\u201d was used without considering its confined .md technical meaning. 2 Sand. 4f a. Ih the case of Lavender v. Pritchard\u2019s adm\u2019r the delivery of a few ears of corn, was held a good delivery of ad the donor\u2019s corn, 1 hough but a small quantity of it was present. 2 Hay. 337.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HALIFAX,\nOCTOBER TERM, 1789.\nArrington v. Arrington.\nIn a gift of personal chattels, a symbolical delivery is sufficient.\nACTION of Detinue, for a negro boy given to the Plaintiff by bis uncle San (lifer. The boy being in Virginia at the time of the gift, and no delivery made, except of a dollar instead of the boy : the Court, ruled, that delivery of possession in such cases, is principally in order to identify the property, and that it might also answer the purposes of notoriety ; but when the identity of them could he proven, the gift was good without delivery : a verdict for the Plaintiff accordingly. Arid as well as I recollect, per Spekcek. if there had been two boys of the same name, a delivery might have been necessary, but as there was only o\u00bbe, the proof of identity was easy."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 9,
  "last_page_order": 9
}