{
  "id": 8687963,
  "name": "RICHMOND M. PEARSON, Adm'r, of MARTHA TENNESON v. JOHN TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearson v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1838-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. & Bat. 60"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. 60"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 3016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.623,
    "sha256": "249d7bad3b0527700a09dfd811a3e8ed357d301eb62d18b12c1d4f35caaa0ac5",
    "simhash": "1:71e360914ec9dc31",
    "word_count": 558
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:24.594429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHMOND M. PEARSON, Adm\u2019r, of MARTHA TENNESON v. JOHN TAYLOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, Judge,\nafter stating the case proceeded as follows : \u2014 It seems to us, that the intention of the testator, was to give to Martha Tennesson, the first child that should be born alive of the body of Dice, after the time he was speaking, to wit, after the date of his will. The first child born alive of Dice, after the date of the will, would be a specific legacy; and if that child died, in the life-time of the testator, it would be the legatee\u2019s misfortune. But on the contrary, if Joe was the first child born of Dice after the date of the will, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover hjs value, whether he was born before or after the death of the testator. We think the Judge erred when he said, that no child of Dice born alive during the life of the testator would satisfy the bequest.\nThe judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.\nPee, Curiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boyden and Cook, for the plaintiff.",
      "D. F. Caldwell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHMOND M. PEARSON, Adm\u2019r, of MARTHA TENNESON v. JOHN TAYLOR\nMartha Tennesson the first child that should be born alive of the. body of Dice after the time he was speaking, to wit: the date of his will, and that she would take such first born child whether born in the life time of the testator or after his death. Where a testator bequeathed his negro woman Dice to his daughter Betsey, and added \u201c the first born of Dice that is living hereafter to fall to Martha Tennesson,\u201d it was held, that the intention of the testator was to give to\nThis was an action of trover for a negro slave, named joe tried at Davie on the last circuit before his Honor Judge . SETTLE.\nThe plaintiff claimed under the following bequest in the will of Caleb Webb, deceased \u2014 \u201c and to my eldest daughter Betsey, I will and bequeath forever to her and her heirs, one negro woman Dice, one horse beast, one cow and calf, one bedstead and furniture for the same, the first born of Dice that is living hereafter to fall to Martha Tennesson, three sheep and one saddle to Betsey.\u201d It was alleged by the plaintiff that the slave Joe, for the conversion of whom this suit was brought, was the first born of Dice as described the will. There was testimony showing that there were other children born of Dice before Joe, but whether they were born before or after the date of the will, did not\nHis Honor instructed the jury that the will of the testator ^ not ta^e e^\"ect bis death, and that no child of Dice bom alive during the life of the testator would satisfy the bequest; but if they believed that Joe was the first born j)jce; after the death of the 'testator, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. The jury returned \u00e1 verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff, moved for a new trial upon the ground that the Judge ought to have charged the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, if Joe were the first born of Dice after the date of the will, though he were born in the testator\u2019s life-time. The motion was overruled and the plaintiff appealed.\nDec. 1838.\nBoyden and Cook, for the plaintiff.\nD. F. Caldwell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 190,
  "last_page_order": 191
}