{
  "id": 11961559,
  "name": "Killingsworth vs. Zollicoffer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Killingsworth v. Zollicoffer",
  "decision_date": "1798-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "72",
  "last_page": "72",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 72"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 72"
    }
  ],
  "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": 133,
    "char_count": 1526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.3,
    "sha256": "f611ed603e74365e8890f005a0de8a868059de7562712a604f33f49cf883a26e",
    "simhash": "1:0a91cef802715c17",
    "word_count": 252
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "M\u2018C'ay and Haywood Judges.-"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Killingsworth vs. Zollicoffer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam.\nM\u2018C'ay and Haywood Judges.-\nThe case cited-for the plaintiff is now th.e established. law and it governs the; present. Verdict and judgment lor the plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davie, for the plaintiff,",
      "Baker argued"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Killingsworth vs. Zollicoffer.\nVxETINUE for Negroes. Killingsworth married the daughter of the defendant, and in about, ten days afterwards the negroes in question, 'which before the marriage were Zollicoib fer\u2019s, were in the possession of the plaintiff, and so continued till after the wile\u2019s death, which took place about a year after the marriage, and afterwards the negroes continued in bis pos'sesst-'' on a year or two, when they were again in the possession of Zol-licoffer, who detains them ; but whilst in the possession of the plaintiff, he the plaintiff, expressed doubts about his title, saying he did not know whether or not he could lawfully sell them.\nDavie, for the plaintiff,\ncited and rdied upon the case of Cart ter*\u2019 executors vs. Rutland.\nBaker argued\nthat the case of Carter and Rutland went upon a presumption that the negroes were intended as a gift by the farther, which presumption can only stand till the contrary appears-, and in this case there are circumstances strong enough to overturn the presumption. The doubts expressed on two several occasions by the plaintiff with respect to the validity ol his title*, and another circumstance, that one of the negroes in question*, was at the time of this pretended-gift, in controversy between a third person and the now defendant, which proves he could not have intended a gift."
  },
  "file_name": "0072-02",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 76
}