Opinion · Superior Court of North Carolina

Glasgow v. . Flowers

2 N.C. 233

Type
Opinion
Court
Superior Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1795-09-05
Topic
litigation

Where a case is so circumstanced that a court of law can give as complete redress as a court of equity can, a court of equity *Page 183 should not interfere with it. Now the circumstances stated here are such as are properly cognizable in a court of law, and with respect to which a court of law can give as complete redress to the party injured as a court of equity could. The court decided in this case according toTims v. Potter, 1 N.C. 12, which must now be taken, and is taken, as a decision establishing the rule of law on this subject. It is a very great mistake to suppose a court of equity can decide against the rules of property established by judicial decisions.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Glasgow v. . Flowers. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
GLASGOWv. FLOWERS,2 N.C. 233(1795)
GLASGOW v. FLOWERS.
Superior Court of North Carolina
(September Term, 1795.)
Where the law can give complete redress, equity will not interfere. Equity cannot change established rules of law, nor act as a court of errors, to correct erroneous decisions of law. When slaves are given to one for life, remainder over, the increase born during the life interest will go with the principal to the remainderman.
BILL IN EQUITY, the object of which was to be relieved against a judgment given by the Superior Court at HILLSBORO, during the last term, whereby Flowers, the now defendant, as the executor of Flowers, deceased, had recovered two negroes of Glasgow, which were the descendants of a negro woman given by the will of the deceased to his wife during her life; which two negroes had been born during the continuance of her estate. A title to these two negroes had been regularly deduced from the widow to Glasgow.
PER CURIAM.
Where a case is so circumstanced that a court of law can give as complete redress as a court of equity can, a court of equityPage 183should not interfere with it. Now the circumstances stated here are such as are properly cognizable in a court of law, and with respect to which a court of law can give as complete redress to the party injured as a court of equity could. The court decided in this case according toTims v. Potter,1 N.C. 12, which must now be taken, and is taken, as a decision establishing the rule of law on this subject. It is a very great mistake to suppose a court of equity can decide against the rules of property established by judicial decisions. The court of equity is as much bound to observe them as a court of law is. If the decision was wrong the court of law might have granted a new trial; and if ever a court for correcting errors should be established, the wrong (234) decision, if any there be, may be a subject for the jurisdiction of that court; but the court of equity must not undertake to act as a court for correcting erroneous judgments.

So the bill was dismissed for want of equity.

NOTE. —Tims v. Potter,1 N.C. 12, so often cited in actions for the increase of slaves, was decided at Hillsborough three or four years after the war. It is a leading case, and governs a vast deal of the property of this country: and, therefore, it may not be improper to subjoin the substance of it in this place.

Glover gave a negro woman to his daughter, but reserved the use of the negro during his life. There was afterwards a judgment against Glover, and an execution, and the wench sold to satisfy it, Potter becoming the purchaser, Tims, the husband of the daughter, after the death of Glover sued for the wench and her children. The plaintiff had a verdict, and a special case was made as to the children born in the lifetime of Glover.

This special case was several times argued, the defendant's counsel citing and relying upon the cases that decide the interest of money accruing during the particular estate to belong to the owner for that time orcestui que use;and also 2 Bl. Com., 396; Puff. lib., 2, c. 4, p. 11.

After time taken to consider from one term to another, the Court decided and gave their opinion at length.
SPENCER and ASHE, JJ., being only present, WILLIAMS, J., being absent, but of a different opinion. They said the remainder carried with it the increase, and vested the property of the wench in the remainderman; and there was left in the owner for life only the use and possession, which use entitled him to the labor of the wench, and nothing more. The increase went to the remainderman, to compensate for the deterioration of the wench, by age, labor, and breeding, whilst in the service of the owner for life. This rule, they said, had prevailed ever since the first settlement of the country. It had been constantly understood to be the law. The practice of the country had been conformable to it. It was a convenient rule, as it enabled owners of such property more easily to provide for their families, in the distribution of it, and for these reasons it should not now be broken in upon. So there was judgment for the plaintiffs, as to the children, also.Cited: Covington v. McEntyre,37 N.C. 318;Patterson v. High,43 N.C. 55.Page 184

(237)