Atkinson v. . Clarke
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of trespass, for faking from the possession of the plaintiff two negroes, David and Charlotte. Plea, not guilty, and a special justification under final process to the defendant, the sheriff of Pitt, against the property of one Peyton II. Tunstal.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, for faking from the possession of the plaintiff two negroes, David and Charlotte. Plea, not guilty, and a special justification under final process to the defendant, the sheriff of Pitt, against the property of one Peyton II. Tunstal. At the trial before Norwood, Judge, at Pitt, on the last spring circuit, the plaintiff produced a deed of gift dated the 18th of April 1822, whereby Tunstal in consideration of the love and affection which he bore to his daughter Rebecca,, the wife of the plaintiff, conveyed to the latter the slaves in dispute. This deed was…
1Opinion of the Court
Rueetst, Judge.
The Superior Court does not seem to have erred upon any of the points made in that court.
The deed from Tanstal to the plaintiff is void. (Palmer v. Faucett, ante 2 vol. 240.)
The assignment by Tanstal, when ho took the oath of insolvency, did not pass the slaves ; for it was not by deed, and there was no delivery of possession nor price paid,
The jury have found, that these slaves were not included in the schedule annexed to the deed to Pettaway of the 22d of February, 1826, which is signed by both 'Tanstal and Pettaway, proved, and registered with the deed, and purports to set…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cotten v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816