{
  "id": 11275261,
  "name": "ADOLPHUS D. JONES & AL. vs. ROBERT STRONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Strong",
  "decision_date": "1846-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "367",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Ired. 367"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. 367"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Dev. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696323
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Dev. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696424
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0399-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.395,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.647286614453783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3524672673966706
    },
    "sha256": "28d843d0fb56ae1a589bb0fc3c7dcf3bab67109134237df6d267e21628bbf418",
    "simhash": "1:0acc66e7137c26d9",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:19.966856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ADOLPHUS D. JONES & AL. vs. ROBERT STRONG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel. J.\nThe opinion of the Judge, given on the point of law appealed from, was certainly correct. This Court decided a similar question in the same way in the case of Merritt v. Windley, 3 Dev. 399.\nPer Curiam. Judgment, affirmed..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kerr, for the plaintiff.",
      "Morehead, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ADOLPHUS D. JONES & AL. vs. ROBERT STRONG.\nA conveyance of slaves is made to a trustee in trust for the sole and separate use of a married woman. The husband\u2019of this woman died, and she then* by deed conveyed the slaves to A. Held, that A. acquired only an equitable title, and could not support au action at law to recover possession o\u00ed the slaves.\nThe case of Merritt v. Windlcy, 3 Dev. 398, cited and approved.\nThis was an action of detinue for slaves. Plea, Non Detinet. On the 14th day of February in the year 1824, John Sneed and Alexander Sneed conveyed the slaves in controversy to John C. Mingas, to hold them in trust for the sole and separate use of Elizabeth Sneed, the wife of Alexander Sneed. On the 14th day of August in the year 1S26, Elizabeth Sneed, then being a widow, made a deed of gift of the said slaves to the plaintiff, reserving: a life estate in the same to herself. The donor thereafter married the defendant, who took possession of the slaves. And notwithstanding the subsequent death of his wife, he now refuses to surrender them. The deed of gift to the plaintiffs, reserving a life estate to the donor in the slaves, was executed subsequent to the passage of our act of assembly, declaring such conveyances to be good and valid. The Judge was of opinion, that the donor of the plain, tiffs had only a trust estate in the said slaves, and that her deed of gift, operated only as an assignment to them of her equitable interest in the slaves, to take effect after her death : That the legal title to the slave\u00bb was in Mingas, the trustee, and that he was the person to sue at laxo for the recovery of them. The plaintiff' suffered a non-suit, and a new trial being refused, he appealed.\nKerr, for the plaintiff.\nMorehead, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0367-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 376
}