Watford v. . Pitt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Watford v. . Pitt

7 N.C. 468

DecidedMay 5, 1819

StatusPublished

This text of 7 N.C. 468 (Watford v. . Pitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

Watford v. . Pitt, 7 N.C. 468 (N.C. 1819).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The case of M’Cree v. Houston, decided at this term, governs this case. Indeed, if there could be a difference between the two cases, it would be against the present Plaintiff| because, after the parol gift to him, the father retained possession of the slave until the sale to Holloman. But in Law there can be no difference. The same reasons that governed the Court in deciding for the Defendant in M’Cree v. Houston, compel them to say that a new trial ought to he granted in this case. The verdict rendered was against Law, as the gift to the child was not by deed, and on that account void against creditors and purchasers under the act of 1784, ch. 10. It is not material that Holloman did not pay the full value of the slave: if he paid nearly the value, it is sufficient. He probably retained as much as would remunerate him for the trouble of defending a suit. Lot the rule for a now trial be made absolute.

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

Hall, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The case of M’Cree v. Houston, decided at this term, governs this case. Indeed, if there could be a difference between the two cases, it would be against the present Plaintiff| because, after the parol gift to him, the father retained possession of the slave until the sale to Holloman. But in Law there can be no difference. The same reasons that governed the Court in deciding for the Defendant in M’Cree v. Houston, compel them to say that a new trial ought to he granted in this case. The verdict rendered was against Law, as the gift to the child was not by deed, and on that account void against creditors and purchasers under the act of 1784, ch. 10. It is not material that Holloman did not pay the full value of the slave: if he paid nearly the value, it is sufficient. He probably retained as much as would remunerate him for the trouble of defending a suit. Lot the rule for a now trial be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.C. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watford-v-pitt-nc-1819.