{
  "id": 8698309,
  "name": "Moore Knight and Wife, v. Theophilus Thomas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knight v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1796-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "333",
  "last_page": "334",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 333"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 333"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.276,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.754022917938459
    },
    "sha256": "6aedbb21b8a6e4cd86a67fa89237ce9d2fab90576bd7b37c420b22a282dccebc",
    "simhash": "1:45a3483f0095353d",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moore Knight and Wife, v. Theophilus Thomas."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Note.\u2014 Vide note to Farrell v. Perry, ante 2.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moore Knight and Wife, v. Theophilus Thomas.\nThe word creditors, in the act of 1784, Rev. c. 225, s. 7, respecting parol gifts of slaves, means, as well those who have become credo tors since the parol transfer, as those who were such before.\nTrover. Thomas, as Sheriff, had sold the negroes in controversy as the property of one Pass, to satisfy an execution of one of Pass\u2019s creditors. It turned out upon evidence, that Pass had conveyed those negroes by parol, bef<>tc witnesses, to the wife of the Plaintiff, sometime before this creditor obtained judgment, and before the debt was contracted, it was argued at the bar, and ad-mith-d by\u2019the couit, that the Judges heretofore have de-ci(Cd that under the act of 1784, c. 10. s. 7* a parol conveyance of negroes is good as between the parties themselves, as before the making of this act; but was v.iid as to creditors, as well creditors who became such afte> the conveyance as those who were creditors at the time; for the mischief intended to he icmedied by the act, was, that subsequent creditors had been defeated of their debts contracted'upon the credit of a man\u2019s visible property, by means of secret gifts to children and others, made before the debts contracted often times, and when toe party may have been in good circumstances. The. court now assented to this construction of the act, and upon this ground granted a new trial, the jury having (bund for the Plaintiff as to one negro, who had been delivered in the presence of witnesses some years before \u2014 Pass had become a debtor to that creditor upon whose execution the. negro was sold, and even before he became involved."
  },
  "file_name": "0333-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 341
}