Mitchell v. . Cheeves

Superior Court of North Carolina

Mitchell v. . Cheeves

3 N.C. 126

DecidedJuly 5, 1800

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 126 (Mitchell v. . Cheeves) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. . Cheeves, 3 N.C. 126 (N.C. Ct. App. 1800).

Pincite

Opinion

When a father sends negroes with his daughter, lately married, to the house of the husband, that is prima facie evidence of the gift. It is, however, but presumptive, and may be overturned by a contrary presumption or express proof. If the possession of the husband be for any considerable time and uninterrupted, that is a very powerful presumption of a gift, and will not be overturned but by very clear proof to the contrary. The presumption in the first instance arises immediately, and does not, as the defendant's counsel contended, require a long and continued possession, such as stated in Carter v. Rutland, 2 N.C. 97. Also, it is very true that a delivery must accompany a gift of personal chattels; but then an after acknowledgment that he has given is evidence of the delivery.

NOTE. — See Farrell v. Perry, 2 N.C. 2, and the note thereto. See, also, Adams v. Hays, 24 N.C. 361.

Cited: Green v. Harris, 25 N.C. 218.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

When a father sends negroes with his daughter, lately married, to the house of the husband, that is prima facie evidence of the gift. It is, however, but presumptive, and may be overturned by a contrary presumption or express proof. If the possession of the husband be for any considerable time and uninterrupted, that is a very powerful presumption of a gift, and will not be overturned but by very clear proof to the contrary. The presumption in the first instance arises immediately, and does not, as the defendant's counsel contended, require a long and continued possession, such as stated in Carter v. Rutland, 2 N.C. 97. Also, it is very true that a delivery must accompany a gift of personal chattels; but then an after acknowledgment that he has given is evidence of the delivery.

NOTE. — See Farrell v. Perry, 2 N.C. 2, and the note thereto. See, also, Adams v. Hays, 24 N.C. 361.

Cited: Green v. Harris, 25 N.C. 218.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-cheeves-ncsuperct-1800.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack