{
  "id": 11275226,
  "name": "ENOCH COBB vs. GEORGE F. CORNEGAY & AL.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cobb v. Cornegay",
  "decision_date": "1846-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Ired. 358"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. 358"
    }
  ],
  "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": 306,
    "char_count": 4263,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.310461560038441e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6242966288768187
    },
    "sha256": "af79a41017931d5f957ee4e82f39bd67a6a70de4c314f9ad794c3a558a4c1302",
    "simhash": "1:d9a67c7829025578",
    "word_count": 767
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:19.966856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ENOCH COBB vs. GEORGE F. CORNEGAY & AL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nThis is an action of Trover, brought to recover the value of a justice\u2019s judgment converted by the defendants to their own use. The plaintiff had recovered a judgment before a single magistrate, which he had placed in the hands of Summerlin, the deputy sheriff, and one of the defendants for collection. He transferred it to Taylor, by whom it was collected, and the money divided between all the defendants, by previous agreement. Several points were raised in the argument below. We do not feel 'called on to give an opinion on but one, and that is the firsi. The Court instructed the jury, that an action of trover can be maintained for the conversion of a justice\u2019s judgment. Believing there is error in this opinion, as it lies at the foundation of the plaintiff\u2019s right of action, we have confined our attention to it.\nHis Honor was well justified in giving the opinion he did, as such had been declared by Judge Halt, to be the law in delivering the opinion of the Court in the case, Hedspeth against Wilson, 2 Dev. R. 370. Upon examination of that case it will be found, that the judgment was for the defendant, and the only point in the case was, whether property, fairly won at gambling, and delivered by the loser to the winner, could, by the former, be recovered back. As the judgment below was in favor of the defendant on that point, and the Supreme Court coin-, cided in its correctness, it was unnecessary to decide the other. And believing it incorrect we feel at liberty to. revise it. To support the action of trover, the plaintiff must have in himself, at the time of the conversion, the right of property, either general or special, and also must, in general, have in himself, the exclusive right of possession. Brown on actions at Law, 433-\u20194, 29th L. Lib. 309,. 310. A Justice\u2019s judgment, is neither goods, nor chattels, nor has the plaintiff a property in it \u2014 and, if he has, it is not an exclusive property. It is well established that tro-ver will not lie for a record. Bro. on Ac. 435, 29th Law Lib. 311t, 6h Ba, Ab, Trov. Letter D, 687, Hard. 111, be cause it is not private property. So neither is a judgment given by a single magistrate. It is true, it is not a record \u2022 \u2014 but it has one essential quality of a record. It concludes the parties from denying the facts it affirms. These judgments are the judgments of a Court regularly constituted by law, and pointed out fey the legislative will, for their government. The acts of a Court, so constituted, cannot be private property. They are muniments, in which both parties to them have an interest \u2014 but neither an exclusive one. To the plaintiff, it is the evidence of a legal obligation on the defendant to pay, and; to the\u2019 latter a protection from further liability on the original cause of action. In the case of Hamilton against Wright and Parish, 4 Hawk. 288, his Honor Judge Hall calls a Justice\u2019s judgment \u201c a public writing,\u201d and Judge Hex-deusox, while he argues to show it is not a record, treats it as an act of a Court, having, in common with records, the quality of concluding- the parties from denying their affirmation. If then a Justice\u2019s judgment is not a record, it is quasi one. It is a public writing, which, from' its nature, cannot belong to any one as a matter of property \u25a0 \u2014 but it belongs to the Justice, who gave it, as a public custodier, to be kept by him until drawn out of his hands by the regular requirements of the law.\nOther questions are presented by the record \u2014 in some of which we do not concur with the presiding Judge. It would, however, do the plaintiff no good to grant him a new trial, as the judgment must still be against him.\nFor this reason the judgment is affirmed.\nPel Cuiuam. Judgment reversed and venire de novc\u00a1.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "TV. Winslow, for the plaintiff.",
      "D. Reid, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ENOCH COBB vs. GEORGE F. CORNEGAY & AL.\nJustices\u2019 judgments are not property in the plaintiff, for which an action of trover will lie.\nThey are not records, but they are judicial determinations and muniments of the rights of both parties.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Duplin County, at the Spring Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.\nThe only material facts in this case are stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.\nTV. Winslow, for the plaintiff.\nD. Reid, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 366,
  "last_page_order": 368
}