{
  "id": 11977004,
  "name": "Johnston and wife vs. Pasteur",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnston v. Pasteur",
  "decision_date": "1803-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "230",
  "last_page": "231",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 230"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 230"
    }
  ],
  "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": 216,
    "char_count": 2157,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.253,
    "sha256": "bb25cf8476c04d2d21a482c5f35518f638018585dd5ce2c685a1d87e96d42ce5",
    "simhash": "1:f9226ea7de0c9010",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnston and wife vs. Pasteur."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ball, Judge,\nwas of a contrary opinion : and under his direct-iioa the jury found for the plaintiffs.\nAnd there was judgment for the plaintiffs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ball, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnston and wife vs. Pasteur.\nrpHIS cause came on again, and the facts appeared to be these The wife of Mr, Johnston, when sole and under age, gave the Negro ?u question to the defendant\u2019s brother, who dying, the defendant became entitled under him, and took possession and continued it long after the intermarriage, r.nd for many } tais after her coming of age ; dial is to say, for fourteen or fifteen, yea'-s.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel Insisted first, that such long acquiescence on the part of the husband, amounted to a relinquishment of his title j and they cited a case determined in this court hi the time of Judge Moore. Two brothers were entitled to a slave, and oue oi both \u00a9f them sold bun to a man in Newbern, when both were infants; they acquiesced lor seven or eight years after coming to age, and the court told the jury they might confiidvr that acquiescence as a conformation of the former sale ; arul theie was a verdict lor the defendant. Secondly : He insisted that this being an action of detinue in the name ofhusband and wiN, ae-erted the property to be cither in the wife, t; ii; the hurband a\u201eud wife ; and of cotiist, if ike property i\u2019eatly was so the husband onty, the dt-fer.ekr'it dixl not detain their property, or that of the wife, as they had declared; and there should be a verdict for the defendant., It is not to be dis-s puted but that a chose hi action dot s not belong to the hu.-band j and it is equally true, that whatever is not \u00ab chose en action, dues belong to him by the intermarriage. It bccottv.-s then important to know what a chose inaction is j and the definition I would' give of it is, a sum of money recoverable by actionor.lv io;.-debt or damages s this definition excludes specific property, which rAay be taken wherever it is found, and the possession vested, in the owner without the aid oi an action. He then cited terms de ley chose enaction, 2 Bl. Com. 397. 1 Lili. Ab. 364. 2 C. iff. 34. Btron and feme E. 3. Brook chose-en 'action, Go. Lilt. 351.i-K"
  },
  "file_name": "0230-03",
  "first_page_order": 234,
  "last_page_order": 235
}