Hertford County, NC - Court File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by Rebecca Moon Case of "LAZARUS CARTER, Executor of ISAAC CARTER, v. SHADRACH RUTLAND" (1794) 2 N.C. 97, 1 Hayw. 97 SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, HALIFAX April, 1794, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: The following facts were stated in this case by the parties as a case agreed, and submitted to a jury on the issue non detinet, under the direction of the court as to the law. Facts agreed to, in the case of LAZARUS CARTER, Executor of ISAAC CARTER, v. SHADRACH RUTLAND. SHADRACH RUTLAND and PARTHENA CARTER, daughter of ISAAC CARTER, of Hertford county, were married the 12th day of November, 1775. About the middle of the year 1776, a negro woman, NANN, with a young child, SAUL, was sent by Mr. CARTER, to said SHADRACH and PARTHENA.--NANN's issue since is, BOB, HASTIE, TIBBIC and LYDIA. Some time in the year 1781, said SHADRACH and PARTHENA were on a visit at Mr. CARTER's, and they were directed to take a negro boy, PETER, home with them. Again, in the year 1782 or 1783, said SHADRACH and PARTHENA were on a visit at Mr. CARTER's, and they were directed to take a negro girl, MAGGY, home with them--MAGGY's issue is, HOMER, PENNY, VIOLET and WILLIS. Mrs. PARTHENA RUTLAND died in August, 1788, and Mr. ISAAC CARTER died the 8th July, 1792. It was also admitted on the trial, that ISAAC CARTER had bequeathed these negroes by his last will, to his grandchildren by PARTHENA, and the executor had made the usual demand, and that the Defendant was in possession. HEADNOTES: Negroes sent with a daughter upon her marriage, or with a son in-law and daughter, is prima facie evidence of a gift; and if the property remains any length of time with them, very strong proof will be required to show that only a loan, and not a gift, was intended. OPINION: Per Curiam--When a man sends property with his daughter upon her marriage, or to his son-in-law and daughter any short time after the marriage, it is to be presumed prima facie, that the property is given absolutely in advancement of his daughter; and when the property is permitted to remain in the possession of the son-in-law for a considerable length of time, as in this case, it will be necessary to prove very clearly, that the property was only lent by the father, and that it was expressly and notoriously understood not to be a gift at the time. The peace of families and the security of creditors, are greatly concerned in the law being thus settled.--Every transaction in human life ought to be considered under its ordinary circumstances--these will sufficiently express the intention of the parties, and generally more unequivocally than the appointed solemnities of the law. This property was given in the usual manner--that is, sent with them on their going to house-keeping, as it is called, or sent to them as soon as the parent could make the necessary arrangements in his farm or family for that purpose. Under this charge, there was a verdict and judgment for the Defendant. ============================================================== USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. The electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access. ==============================================================