{
  "id": 1961043,
  "name": "Doe on the demise of ADELAIDE AND ELIZABETH KRON v. MARTIN HINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe on the Demise of Kron v. Hinson",
  "decision_date": "1861-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Jones 347"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. 347"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Dev. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/15/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hawks 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/9/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hawks 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11275474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/9/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Hawks 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276768
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/10/0119-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3297,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.267022623599535e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3866103776706673
    },
    "sha256": "10c29a92a235b2ee3fd23f0485afad5ea00e8e0f97908a4723375dffd380009c",
    "simhash": "1:a5b0930e063c2d5d",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:38.635812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe on the demise of ADELAIDE AND ELIZABETH KRON v. MARTIN HINSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Manly, J.\nWe do not think it necessary to discuss other questions presented upon this record. There is one ruled erroneously, without doubt, to the prejudice of the appellant,, and for that he is entitled to a venwe de novo: the grant of the 14lh of December, 1849, to Adelaide and Elizabeth Kron, is color of title. We perceive no reason why it is not so.\u2014 The public authorities decided upon the evidence before them that the grantees were entitled, under the provisions of the acts of Assembly, and, accordingly, they made the grant. It in form purports to convey title \u2014 emanates from proper and the highest officers of the State, and is, therefore, of a character to induce a man of ordinary capacity to confide in it as sufficient to secure the enjoyment of the land. This is all that is necessary to constitute color; Dobson v. Murphy, 1 Dev. and Bat. 586; Tate\u2019s heirs v. Southard, 3 Hawks 119.\nMany forms of conveyance, much less imposing than this, have been held to be color ; as, for instance, an unregistered deed \u2014 an unconstitutional act of the Legislature' \u2014 a deed without consideration, and intended, merely, as color; Den on the demise of Campbell v. McArthur, 2 Hawks 33; Episcopal Church of Newbern v. The Academy, 2 Hawks 233; Rogers v. Mabe, 4 Dev. 180.\nThe nonsuit should be set aside and a venire de novo awarded.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Manly, J. Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ashe, for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel appeared for the defendant in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe on the demise of ADELAIDE AND ELIZABETH KRON v. MARTIN HINSON.\nA grant from the State, purporting to be made in obedience to acts of the General Assembly, providing for the relief of persons whose title deeds had been destroyed by the burning of the courthouses, &c., of Hertford and Montgomery counties, was held to be color of title.\nThis was an action of ejectment, tried before French, J., at the Fall Term, 1860, of Montgomery Superior Court.\nThe lessors of the plaintiff offered in evidence a grant from the State, dated on the 11th of December, 1819, which purported to have been issued \u201cin obedience to an act of the General Assembly of this State, passed at the session of 1811-5,' chapter 53, ratified on the 1st of January, 1815, entitled \u201c An act to extend the provisions of an act passed at the General Assembly of 1830-1, entitled an act for the relief of such ptersons as may suffer from the destruction of the records of Hertford county, occasioned by the burning of the courthouse and clerks office, to the counties of Montgomery and Stanly.\u201d To entitle themselves to the benefit of said acts of Assembly, the lessors of the plaintiff produced evidence to show that the title deeds under .which they claimed the land in question, were consumed by the fire which burned the courthouse of Montgomery county in the year 1813; that they had made advertisement of a survey in 1819, setting fourth their boundaries, and the grounds on which they claimed a right to an entry and grant for the said land. They also proposed to show the entry made in 1849, and which is recited in the said grant. They farther proved that they had had seven years possession of the land in question, and insisted that at least the grant offered by them was color of title. The Court rejected the evidence, and the plaintiff took a nonsuit, and appealed.\nAshe, for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel appeared for the defendant in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 355,
  "last_page_order": 356
}