{
  "id": 8695605,
  "name": "EDWARD S. CARTER AND OTHERS ayainst MADISON GREENWOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. Greenwood",
  "decision_date": "1860-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "410",
  "last_page": "411",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Jones Eq. 410"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 N.C. 410"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Jones 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086668
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0508-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.432,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.206747897699882e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26805578240275785
    },
    "sha256": "8ded8716a9c7d9f50d60472239be044cdb2932558c0be539d619d693c2f8c6f4",
    "simhash": "1:8ffd1bd40788085e",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:36.855594+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EDWARD S. CARTER AND OTHERS ayainst MADISON GREENWOOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaRson, O. J.\nThere is no error in the decretal order appealed from. By the plaintiffs\u2019 own showing, \u201c for the purpose of saving the expense and trouble of a regular administration,\u201d they took possession of the estate of Samuel Carter and divided it out among themselves; thus acting in direct violation of the statute, which prohibits such an irregular in-termeddling with the estate of a deceased person, and subjects the parties to a penalty. It follows that the courts cannot aid or protect them from the consequences of their own illegal acts. This is settled, Ramsay v. Woodward, 3 Jones 508; Sharp v. Tanner, 4 Dev. and Bat. 122. The case admits of no further discussion at this stage of the proceeding.\nPbk Cubiam, Decretal order affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaRson, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Avery-, for the plaintiffs.",
      "JV. W. Woodjm, J. W. Woodjm and Gaither, for defendant"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWARD S. CARTER AND OTHERS ayainst MADISON GREENWOOD.\nWhere the heirs-at-law and next of kin of a deceased person, took possession of his estate and divided it out among themselves, and sold some of it, it was Held thS,t the Court of Equity could not protect them by restraining an administrator, regularly appointed, from recovering- the property in actions at law.\nThis was an appeal from the Court of Equity of Buncombe county, on a decretal order, made by Heatii, J., at the last Spring Term.\nThe plaintiffs are the next of kin and heirs-at-law of Samuel Carter, who died intestate in Buncombe county. It is alledged in the plaintiffs\u2019 bill, that for the purpose of saving the expense and trouble of a regular administration, they came to an arrangement and understanding among, themselves, by which to settle and divide the estate of the said intestate ; that they paid off most of the debts of the estate\u2014 some of them took the real estate for their share, and the others the slaves and other property for theirs; that several of them had conveyed their property, thus acquired, and made deeds of conveyance for the same; that the defendant having i small debt of about thirty-five dollars, had applied to th\u00e9 bounty Court and obtained letters of administration on the \u00a1state; that in virtue thereof, he had commenced actions of .rover against the recipients of the slaves, and were urging the same to judgment. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction to restrain the defendant from further carrying on these suits, the plaintiffs offering to submit to a decree for the amount due the defendant.\nThe defendant answered, explaining the reason of his taking the course attributed to him by the plaintiffs, but from the view taken of the case, the matters set forth are immaterial. On the coming in of the answer, the injunction, which had been issued, was ordered to be dissolved, and the plaintiffs appealed.\nAvery-, for the plaintiffs.\nJV. W. Woodjm, J. W. Woodjm and Gaither, for defendant"
  },
  "file_name": "0410-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 419
}