¶1 In this case, there was no evidence that Lindsay’s share of the corn and pork had been set apart for him'by Atkinson, and while so set apart, that the conveyance to the Plaintiff was made. Before the Plaintiff can recover, he must shew that the share of Lindsay had been set apart, otherwise the case would rest upon the mere contract of the parties. He must shew, in the next place, that after Lindsay’s share had been so set apart, it was conveyed to him, and before any conversion thereof was made by Atkinson. The evidence does not support either part of the case, and the nonsuit was proper. Let the rule for a new trial be discharged.
6 N.C. 87
Wood v. . Atkinson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided July 5, 1811
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1811-07-05
From Wayne. This was an action of trover, in which the Plaintiff claimed to recover the value of certain corn and pork, which he alleged belonged to him, and which Defendant liad converted to his own use. The. facts of the case were, as follow. Atkinson, the Defendant, employed one John Lindsay as an overseer for the year 1806, and agreed to give him a certain portion of the corn and hogs which should be raised on the plantation in that year.
Decided 1811-07-05