{
  "id": 11277141,
  "name": "Doe ex dem A. N. COLVORD v. L. D. MONROE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe ex dem Colvord v. Monroe",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 288"
    }
  ],
  "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": 227,
    "char_count": 2811,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31792509910809474
    },
    "sha256": "22da1f96823d981441c35398af17a1959dd142348707450a2faa0c8054f0a9bd",
    "simhash": "1:0bfa7772c8c4088b",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe ex dem A. N. COLVORD v. L. D. MONROE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nI. There is nothing in the Constitution or laws of North Carolina, which forbids Cherokee Indians residents from taking and holding land. There is, therefore, no force' in the defendant\u2019s first exception to his Honor\u2019s ruling.\nII. The statute requires that all contracts with Cherokee ' Indians, involving ten dollars in value, shall be in writing, and subscribed by two witnesses. The deed offered in evidence had the names of two subscribing witnesses, as the statute requires, but upon the probate for registration, only one of them was examined. When a will of lands, which requires two subscribing witness, is. admitted to probate upon the testimony of one, it will be intended, prima fade, that it was legally proved by him. University v. Blount, N. C. T. R. 13. Harven v. Springs, 10 Ire. 180. His honor committed no error in his charge upon this point.\nIII. The fact that one of the subscribing witnesses denied his signature, did not of itself render the deed void, and notwithstanding his denial, it was competent to prove by other evidence that he did subscribe it. 1 Blackstone\u2019s R. 865.\nPee Cueiam. There is no error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the appellant.",
      "Phillips & Merrimon, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe ex dem A. N. COLVORD v. L. D. MONROE.\nThe laws of North Carolina permit resident Cherokee Indians to take and. hold land by grant.\nThe law providing that contracts with Indians shall be subscribed by two. witnesses, does not require the probate for registration, to be by both.\n\"Where one of the two witnesses to such a contract, stated upon oath that-he could not recollect having subscribed it, it was competent to establish that fact by other testimony.\n([University v. Blornt, N. C. T. Reports, 13, Sawkins v. Springs, 10 Jon. 130,., oited and approved.)\nEjbctmeNT, tried before Cannon, J., at Fall Term 1868 of' the Superior Court of OheroKEE.\nThe plaintiff claimed under a grant from the State to one-Clausine, a Cherokee Indian; and then showed that Clausine had conveyed to him by deed dated August 15 1864. This deed was proved, at the time of its registration,.by only one of the two witnesses whose names appeared subscribed; and the other witness on being introduced at the trial, said that he-could not recollect that 7ie had ever subscribed it.\nThe defendant objected to the grant on the ground that an. Indian could not hold lands in North Carolina: he also-objected to the deed to the lessor o\u00ed the plaintiff because not established at the probate by two subscribing witnesses; and he-submitted, that it was incompetent for the \u2022 plaintiff to introduce testimony to contradict what the other subscribing wit-nos testified to on the trial.\nIiis Honor overruled each of these objections.\nVerdict for the plaintiff: Rule for new trial: Rule discharged- \u2022 Judgment, and Appeal by the defendant.\nNo counsel for the appellant.\nPhillips & Merrimon, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 304,
  "last_page_order": 305
}