Gilky v. . Dickerson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Rutherford. This was an action of trespass, for taking away two negroes, brought against the Defendant, who was coroner of the county of Rutherford,, The evidence on the part of the Plaintiff was, that he purchased the negroes of one Alley, on the 19th of Sep-Umber, 1820, for a valuable consideration and bona fide; that he took them into possession, and afterwards, on tiie 7th of October, 1820, the Defendant levied on, and sold them, by virtue of an execution issuing…
Read the full summary
From Rutherford. This was an action of trespass, for taking away two negroes, brought against the Defendant, who was coroner of the county of Rutherford,, The evidence on the part of the Plaintiff was, that he purchased the negroes of one Alley, on the 19th of Sep-Umber, 1820, for a valuable consideration and bona fide; that he took them into possession, and afterwards, on tiie 7th of October, 1820, the Defendant levied on, and sold them, by virtue of an execution issuing from September, 1820, returnable to March, 1821, at the instance of the State Bank, against Alley and one Elliott. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
I think a new trial ought to be granted in this case, because the facts seem to me to be very imperfectly set forth. I cannot see upon what ground a verdict lias been rendered against the Defendant. It seems he levied upon the property in dispute about harvest time; but this was before the sale by Alley to the Plaintiff — that he afterwards, under an alias ji. fa. levied upon, and sold the property, on the seventh of October — ■ that Alley carried the-property away sometime in September, It does not appear that the property was eve» in tlio possession of the Defendant, if that was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hatton v. . DewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814
- Blount v. Benbury.Superior Court of North Carolina · 1805