Shannon v. Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank Count}', at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Dibit presiding. Trover for the conversion of a parcel of Indian corn, tried on not guilty. The case appearing in the bill of exceptions is this. In the year 1850, one Jennings planted a crop of corn on shares in a field belonging to one Pool: Pool to have one half and Jennings the other.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank Count}', at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Dibit presiding. Trover for the conversion of a parcel of Indian corn, tried on not guilty. The case appearing in the bill of exceptions is this. In the year 1850, one Jennings planted a crop of corn on shares in a field belonging to one Pool: Pool to have one half and Jennings the other. On the 9th of September 1850, Jennings sold his share of the crop to the plaintiff tor $130 and made him a bill of sale “for the one half or my entire interest in that growing crop of corn on the lands of J.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin C. J.
The case is not stated with a view to the question, whether Jennings was the lessee or the servant of Pool, but assumes that he had a property in the crop and had effectually conveyed it to the plaintiff. Taking that to be so, the Court is of opinion, there was a conversion of the corn, for which the defendant is answerable to the plaintiff. It is the common doctrine, that, if an officer, under an execution against the goods of one, sell the goods of another, he and the purchaser are jointly and severally liable in trover. If this corn had been gathered and the sale made at the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Danville State Bank v. MaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Harris v. HarrisMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
- Skinner v. . SkinnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1843