{
  "id": 2086709,
  "name": "HENRY HARRINGTON, ADM'R. OF THOMAS LANGLEY vs. WEDIGON MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrington v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1855-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "56",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Jones 56"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 N.C. 56"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Dev. Eq. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274975
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/16/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 3007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0748080293484292
    },
    "sha256": "57d4d45ebc0764a390b77a955430a7d7a345ab4d98b45c72a0378ce86ec8eb0e",
    "simhash": "1:79895545e668f7df",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:13.305795+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY HARRINGTON, ADM\u2019R. OF THOMAS LANGLEY vs. WEDIGON MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe case of Hinton v. Hinton, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. Rep. 587, referred to, and relied on, by the defendant\u2019s counsel, is a direct authority in his favor. It was there held, that slaves advanced by parol to a daughter, by her father, upon her marriage, and remaining in the possession of her husband until the death of her father, intestate, were, under the act of 1806, (1 Rev. Stat. ch. 37, sec. 17,) an advancement at the time of the marriage, and belonged to the husband, notwithstanding the death of the wife before her father. This being so, with regard to the slaves which were put into the lmsband\u2019s possession, and which remained there until the father\u2019s death, their issue, born during that period, must also belong to him. Indeed the plaintiff\u2019s counsel has not'contended that any distinction can be made between the original stock and the issue, and we are clearly satisfied that none such exists. See Stallings v. Stallinys, 1 Dev. Eq. 298.\nThe judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed, and according to the case agr\u00e9ed, a judgment of nonsuit must be entered.\nPer Curiam.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donnell, for the plaintiff.",
      "Rodmcm and Singletary, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY HARRINGTON, ADM\u2019R. OF THOMAS LANGLEY vs. WEDIGON MOORE.\nSlaves advanced to a daughter on her marriage, and remaining in the possession of her husband until the death of her father, intestate, are an advancement at the time of the marriage, and belong to the husband, notwithstanding the death of the wife before her father.\nThe issue of a female slave (one of above-mentioned) thus remaining, belong to the husband, though the mother was returned to the father.\nAction of detinue, tried before his Honor, Judge Dick, at the Eall Term, 1855, of Pitt Superior Court.\nShortly after the marriage of defendant with Mary, the the daughter of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, in the year 1839, the latter placed in the possession of defendant and his wife, several slaves, to wit: Nicey, Orange, Silvey, and Harriet. In 1813, Mary, the wife of the defendant, died, and shortly afterwards, Silvey, after haring had seven children, returned to the possession of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and there remained until his death in 1855 : the other three, Nicey, Orange, and Harriet, together with the seven children of Silvey, remaining in the possession of defendant, up to that time.\nThe plaintiff administered on the estate of the intestate, and made a demand of the defendant for these ten slaves, which being refused, this action was brought. The, foregoing facts were agreed upon, as a special case, and submitted to his Honor, with the further agreement, that if he should be of opinion with the plaintiff, he should have judgment for the sum of $7,500, to be discharged by the delivery of the slaves, and judgment for costs. But in case he should decide for the defendant, judgment of nonsuit was to be entered.\nHis Honor being of opinion with plaintiff, gave judgment for him according to the agreement, and defendant appealed.\nDonnell, for the plaintiff.\nRodmcm and Singletary, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0056-01",
  "first_page_order": 64,
  "last_page_order": 66
}