{
  "id": 11276963,
  "name": "Falls and others v. Torrance",
  "name_abbreviation": "Falls v. Torrance",
  "decision_date": "1823-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "491",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hawks 490"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. 490"
    }
  ],
  "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": 216,
    "char_count": 2844,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.098727984720307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.938251805414138
    },
    "sha256": "6ac96b153a847c41749199d754b20e46d62a627a5b6f22335a7a1462102a3412",
    "simhash": "1:033ddfb6906557a4",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:49.892283+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Falls and others v. Torrance."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "IIah;, Jndgc,\ndelivered the Court\u2019s opinion.\nThis case very much resembles that of Tate v. Green lee\u2019s adm\u2019r, decided this term.\nIt is a motion to dismiss the bill \u2014 thirty-five years or thereabouts, having elapsed from the death of Gilbraith Falls, Complainants\u2019 father, until the time of filing it. It appears that at the time of Gilbraith Falls\u2019 death, that the Complainants were infants ; that some of them, (his daughters) married in their infancy ; that their husbands are yet living. They further state, that a negro woman by the name of Flora, now the mother of several children, was part of the estate of their father; that division was never made of her amongst the distributees; and that the reason why they did not bring suit sooner, was, that they had reason to believe that Hugh Torrance, who had married their mother, who was the ad-ministratrix of their father\u2019s estate, would have directed the said negroes to bo delivered up to them at his death, so that the bill is not brought for a general settlement only, but for a division of the negroes thus pointed out. For these reasons, we think the bill ought not to he dis missed,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "IIah;, Jndgc,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN EQUITY.\nFalls and others v. Torrance.\nFrom Iredell.\nMotion to dismiss a bill filed against an administrator for an account, after a lapse of thirty-seven years, disallowed ; because Complainants were infants at the time of the intestate\u2019s death: some of them married during infancy, and were y etfemes covert; and the Defendant, moreover, had induced them, by his representations, to believe he would settle without suit.\nThe bill which was filed in 1817, set forth that one Gil-braithFalls died in June, 1780, intestate, and that administration on his estate was granted in 1781, to his widow, who in 1784 married the Defendant; that the Complainants were the children of Gilbraith Falls, and at the time of his death were infants ; that some of them (the daughters) married in infancy, and were yet femes covert $ that among other property of their deceased parent taken into possession by his administratrix, was a negro woman, Flora, now the mother of several children, and that distribution of this property had never been made among Complainants. They assigned as a reason for not making earlier claim, that Torrance, the husband of the administratrix, by his declarations, induced a belief that he did not contest Complainants\u2019 right to the pro perty, but declared that they should be distributed among the next of kin of Gilbraith Falls.\nThe bill prayed that Torrance might be compelled to deliver up the property for distribution, and account for the intermediate value of the labour of Flora and her children.\nGaston and Wilson moved to dismiss ; and were opposed by\n^'eawell and Mordecai. \u2014 For Defendants were cited mYewland on Cont. 467, 479 \u2014 -1 Caine\u2019s Cases in Mrror, o Ves. 680."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 472,
  "last_page_order": 473
}