By
The case cited for the plaintiff is now the established law, and it governs the present suit.
Verdict for the Plaintiff.
Killingsworth v. Zolliceffer, 1 N.C. 143, 1 Tay. 143 (1798)
Oct. 1798
·
North Carolina Superior Court
1 N.C. 143, 1 Tay. 143
Killingsworth versus Zolliceffer.
DETINUE for negroes. Killingsworth married the daughter of the defendant, and, is about ten days afterwards, the negroes in question, which before the marriage were Zolliceffer’s, were in the possession of the plaintiff and fo continued till after the wife’s death, which took place about a year after the marriage, and afterwards the negroes continued in his possession a year or two, when they were again in the possession of Zolliceffer who detains them: but whilst in the possession of the plaintiff, he, the plaintiff, expressed doubts about his title, saying he did not know whether, or not, he could lawfully sell them.
Negroes sent to the husband by the wife's father soon after marraige, are presumed to be given.
The Counsel for the plaintiff cited and relied on the case of Carter’s Executors versus Rutland, Haywood’s Rep. 97.
The Counsel for the defendant agreed that the case of Carter’s Ex. and Rutland went upon a presumption that the negroes were intended as a gift by the father, which presumption can only stand until the contrary appears: and in this case, there are circumstances strong enough to overturn the presumption; the doubts expressed on two several occasions by the plaintiff with respect to the validity of his title; and another circumstance, that one of the negroes in question was at the time of this pretended gift, in controversy between a third *144person and the now defendant; which proves that he could not have intended a gift.