{
  "id": 8682059,
  "name": "J. W. BAXTER v. T. F. BAXTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baxter v. Baxter",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "119",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 118"
    }
  ],
  "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": 148,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.1982915367484626e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8657137925801852
    },
    "sha256": "5955c5548d8776556dd699841e9cea1c2e31271c4ea944492e3551202ff63239",
    "simhash": "1:3e9649b0f11e792a",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. BAXTER v. T. F. BAXTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eairgloth, J.\nThis action was brought to restrain the defendant, T. E. Baxter, as Sheriff, from selling under an execution certain personal property, which had been assigned to the plaintiff, J. W. Baxter, as his personal property exemption, which is still in his possession.\nThe argument before us referred to the sufficiency of certain levies made by the Sheriff, and to the effect of an order made in the Bankrupt Court. We do not enter into these questions, as we are of opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action and therefore cannot maintain it, on the ground that his possession of said property has not been disturbed by the defendants.\nShould they seize it, as it is alleged they threatened to do, the plaintiffs may continue their possession -under C. C. P. \u00a7 177, (sub \u00a7 4), and try the title regularly and not by injunction.\nThe practice of trying title to 'personal property by injunction has not been adopted in this State.\nThere is error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed and action dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eairgloth, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Gilliam Pruden, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. W. JSF. H. Smith, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. BAXTER v. T. F. BAXTER.\nPractice \u2014 Injunction\u2014Personal Property Exemption.\nThe title to personal property cannot be tried by injunction ; Therefore? where a Sheriff levied upon certain personal property, which had been allotted to the defendant in the execution as his personal property exemption and remained in his possession, and was restrained by injunction from selling the same ; Held, to he error.\nInjunctioN heard at Eall Term, 1875, of Currituck Superior Court, before Eure, J.\nThe defendant, as Sheriff of Currituck County, levied on certain articles of personal property belonging to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff applied for, and obtained an order restraining the Sheriff from selling the same, on the ground that said articles had already been assigned to him, as his personal property exemption ; and that they were not present or in view of the Sheriff at the time of the alleged levy.\nFrom said order the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Gilliam Pruden, for plaintiff.\nMr. W. JSF. H. Smith, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 133
}