{
  "id": 1961026,
  "name": "HUGH T. MOFFITT v. JOHN O. BURGESS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moffitt v. Burgess",
  "decision_date": "1861-06",
  "docket_number": "One witness testified, that when defendant returned, he stated that Aired had gone to High Point or Greensborough to get work. Another, that he said on his return, that Aired was in a quandary, when he left him, whether to go to Beaufort or Missouri",
  "first_page": "342",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Jones 342"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. 342"
    }
  ],
  "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": "6 Jones 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        11276907
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/51/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 4685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07091591054150262
    },
    "sha256": "24b3e90f2a70e8c21cb3423a8587de03a0952d991321c78a1c23690b2f19c9c7",
    "simhash": "1:ea318c4cbe2f166e",
    "word_count": 835
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:38.635812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HUGH T. MOFFITT v. JOHN O. BURGESS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nTaking the whole of Ilis Honor\u2019s charge together, and applying it to the facts stated by the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Kersey, it is correct in principle, and is fully sustained by the case of Moss, Bell & Co. v. Peoples, 6 Jones 140. If the defendant, with his horse and buggy, carried the debtor to Greensborough, and there procured the money to enable him to leave the State, and if this were done with the intent to assist him in the purpose of avoiding his creditors, it was a fraudulent removal of the debtor within the meaning of the statute, and the defendant must abide the consequences.\nThe testimony which was offered on the part of the defendant as to the declaration of the debtor, that \u201c he intended to get him into a scrape,\u201d was properly rejected on the ground of its immateriality. The debtor did get him into a scrape, and it was a matter of no consequence on the trial of the issue whether he did it designedly or not.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Long, Scott and Phillips, for the plaintiff.",
      "Gorrell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HUGH T. MOFFITT v. JOHN O. BURGESS.\nWhere a party, with his horse and buggy, carried a debtor to a railroad station, and there procured the money to enable him to leave the State, with the intent to assist him in the purpose of avoiding his creditors, it was held to be a fraudulent removal within the statute.\nThe declaration of a debtor fradulently removed, that \u201c he intended to get the defendant into a scrape,\u201d was held to be immaterial.\nThis was an aotioN ON the oase, for fraudulently removing a debtor, one Aired, tried before Howaed, J., at the last Superior Court of Randolph county.\nMi's. Kersey, a cousin of the defendant, and of Aired, testified that the defendant, and Aired, his brother-in-law, came one Sunday evening to the residence of her husband, in Greensborough, in the buggy and with the horse of the defendant; that the defendant asked for her husband, and said that he had bought Alred\u2019s growing crop, and wished to get the money to pay him for it; that Aired was broke \u2014 was out collecting money, and was going to Missouri ,\u2022 that the night before, Aired came to his house and told him that his crop was under execution, and wanted him to buy it; that he was going away; that Aired could not go, unless the defendant could get the money from witness\u2019 husband ; that witness asked defendant, \u201c what was to become of Sally,\u201d Alred\u2019s wife, to which he replied, that she did not know her husband was going away until the night before ; that she was not going until further orders, and that in the mean time, he (defendant) was to take care of her; that he didn\u2019t reckon that witness would ever see Aired again ; that on Monday, her husband let defendant have the money, $150, which he paid over to Aired, who took the next train for the west.\nOne witness testified, that when defendant returned, he stated that Aired had gone to High Point or Greensborough to get work. Another, that he said on his return, that Aired was in a quandary, when he left him, whether to go to Beaufort or Missouri.\nKersey stated that he lent the defendant the sum of $150, which was paid to Aired; that defendant then endeavored to pnrsuade Aired to give up his purpose of going and offered to furnish him a house, free of rent, if he would give up the idea of going.\nIn the course of the trial, the defendant\u2019s counsel asked a witness if he did not hear Aired say, sometime before he went away, that he intended to get the defendant into a scrape. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel objected to this question, and the testimony was ruled out, whereupon the defendant excepted.\nThe Court charged the jury that, although a debtor may be embarrassed, and may be preparing to leave the country, to avoid his creditors, yet, if a person simply purchase his property for value, or to save his debt, and with no other purpose or intent, he would not be made liable for the debts of such debtor; but if he knows that the debtor is insolvent or embarrassed, and is preparing to avoid his creditors, and he furnish him means of transporting either himself or his property, then the law presumes he intended the consequences of his act, and unless he shows that such was not his intent, he will be held responsible. Therefore, if the jury were satisfied that the defendant knew of Alred\u2019s embarrassment before he left home, and that Mrs. Kersey\u2019s statement was true, plaintiff was entitled to recover. But if the defendant simply purchased the crop and went to Creensborough for the money, and with no other intent, then they should find for the defendant. Defendant\u2019s counsel excepted to the charge.\nVerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nLong, Scott and Phillips, for the plaintiff.\nGorrell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0342-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 352
}