{
  "id": 8682337,
  "name": "MURDOCH WHITE vs. PETER MALLETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Mallett",
  "decision_date": "1864-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Win. 34"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.C. 34"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3190,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.303,
    "sha256": "b4f2d062b7fb110c41a0095fc82fd6a0b3a6c273c3c210db301d055b53e592cb",
    "simhash": "1:b59700ad1acdd642",
    "word_count": 556
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:57.689025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MURDOCH WHITE vs. PETER MALLETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nAssuming that the plaintiff was, in the first instance, entitled to exemption as the owner or manager of fifteen hands, we are of opinion that he is too late in now making an application on that ground.\nOne of the conditions of the exemption is, that the par7 ty \u201c shall sell the surplus of provisions and grain now on hand, and which'he-may raise from year to year, to the government,\u201d &c. * .\nWe think the application must be made in reasonable time, so that the government may have the benefit of this condition in respect to the provisions and grain on hand. This application was not made until November, 1864, nine mouths after the passage of the act, which is not in reasonable time ; for during that period, the surplus of provision\u00ae and'grain on hand in' February, 1864, may have been sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, and thus the government would lose the benefit of a condition, which has been made impossible by the act of the plaintiff.\nWhether an allegation, that the plaintiff had on hand at the time he made fhe application now relied on, the same surplus. of provisions and grain which lie had in February,' 1864, -would have met this objection, is a question not presented. It would seem, owing to the nature of the subject, that the government should not be subjected to the inconvenience of going into such collateral matters, b}\"- the folly or mis (in tunc of the plaintiff, in not putting his claim to.exemption, in the first instance, on the ground he now takes, in few words, the exemption is made to-depend on a condition precedent tha; tl-c government shall Lave b.'h v.i'pUis provisions si ml g'an- at -certain rates.. Its- performance is made impossible by the delay of the plaintiff, which is his misfortune.\nThe case of Savage, on wliicli His Honor puts his opinion, was decided without reference to the point on whieh this decision is put. It is a new suggestion on the' cons traction of .the act of Congress,'but we'think, wellfoua,-. ded.\nThere is error. Judgment reversed'and judgment that the petitioner be remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vowle for the petitioner.",
      "Hrayg fot Mailett."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MURDOCH WHITE vs. PETER MALLETT.\nApplication for exempt! cm .\u2018ecount of being the owner and manager or overseer of 15 able-bodied slaves, must he made in reasonable time after 1st Jan , 1864.\nApplication on the 22nd Nov., 1864. is not in reasonable tiCba.\nThis was a writ of certiorari at the suit of .Major Mai-lett, for the purpose of reviewing the judgment of Gilliam, J., in a writ of habeas corpus sued, out by Murdoch White.. . \u2022\nThe writ of habeas corpus was applied for and issued on the 22nd November, 18(54.\nIt appeared on the trial that the petitioner was the owner and manager o\u00ed more than 15 able-bodied slaves, and that be bad all the other qualifications required by the act of Congress of lhith Feb.-, 1864.\n\u25a0 It also appeared that on the 20th April, 1884, the petitioner had applied lor a detail as a farmer working ten. hands, and that his application had not been acted on by the Department of War, -when he was ordered to eamp in November.\nJudge Gilliam discharged the petitioner on the authority of Savage\u2019s case, decided by Chief Justice Pearson.\nVowle for the petitioner.\nHrayg fot Mailett."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 152
}