{
  "id": 8693321,
  "name": "Dickenson v. Dickenson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickenson v. Dickenson",
  "decision_date": "1813-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "279",
  "last_page": "280",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Mur. 279"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. 279"
    }
  ],
  "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 Murph. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.381,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2306039578534348e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6055799006042437
    },
    "sha256": "8dbba2fa20b6da99a88b5de7867d926635499201bfa0ac11104107eacc0a548e",
    "simhash": "1:c47927b3d774113b",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.600243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dickenson v. Dickenson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tayxor, Chief Justice.\nThe Court have looked into the cases of Smith v. Williams, (1 Murph. 426,) and Streator v. Jones, (Id. 449,) heretofore decided, and are of opinion that this case is governed by them, and that, consequently, itis not competent for the Plaintiff to give parol evidence for either of the purposes stated in tk\u00ab base,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tayxor, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dickenson v. Dickenson.\n\u25a0 Where an absolute deed is made, parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the deed was made under any special trust, and that a valuable consideration was not paid.\nThe bill charged, that David Dickenson, the elder, in the year 1782, conveyed by deed, a slave to Shadraek Dickenson, which deed, on its face, purported to be ab\u00ab soltite, and made lor a valuable consideration, whereas, ^j,e ,je\u00bf(j wag m\u00bfd\u00bf in trust, for the benefit of David, and underlay agreement on the part 6f SJiadrack, that the slave should be conveyed and delivered to David^ or to such person as lie should at any time direct. The bill further charged that no consideration was paid, find that the complainant being a judgment creditor of D\u00e1t id\u2019s, the l\u00e1tter did, in 1810, assign all his right in the said slave to him; pf which assignment, Shadr\u00e1bk bad notice, but refused to give lip the property, insisting that he was hti absolute purchaser for valuable cion-* sideration. '\nThe answer denied the trust, averred a Valuable con* sideration to .hard been paid, and atledged that the transaction was an absolute sale arid purchase.\nThe only question submitted to the decision of this Court was, whether parol evidence was admissible, to she w that the deed whs made under the trust specified in the bill, and that a valuable Consideration was not paid*"
  },
  "file_name": "0279-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}