Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1859 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The bill was filed against the defendant as the guardian of the plaintiff for an account and settlement of the sum owing to him under the will of his father, Joseph Branch. The will provided for the sale of lands in Tennessee and all other property except for the slaves and the contents of 5 trunks which were reserved for the children. The will included instructions for the education of his children and for the hiring out of slaves. It had a provision that stated I desire that such of my negroes, as may be necessary to wait on and attend to my children, go with them to North Carolina. I greatly desire that my negroes shall be humanely treated, and should prefer, if it can be done, that they be hired out, privately, to humane persons, even at a less price, and, if possible, in families together. His brother John Branch, Laurence O'Brian and Henry R W Hill were appointed as guardians, trustees and executors. The question debated by the court was whether the costs of educating and maintaining the children was to be a joint charge upon the aggregate profits of the estate or whether such support should come out of their separate share of the profits. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the latter and made a decree for a full account of the sums concerned.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1844 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Hooper, a free man of colour, and Suttles, a white woman, were indicted in 1842 for adultery. Their defence was that they had been married for ten years. The jury was directed to determine whether or not the marriage was valid; they found that Hooper and Suttles had married before an act of 1838 that prohibited marriage between white people and free people of colour and so the couple were acquitted, whereupon the state appealed. In the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Ruffin pointed out that the marriage had violated a similar statute dating from 1830, and ordered the verdict reversed.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1852 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This is the main manuscript file for this case. The Supreme Court appeal of 1852 was a petition to rehear a decretal order, made by Chief Justice Ruffin in December 1851 in the same court, pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. The will directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs, were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. There are also two supplementary manuscript files for this case: see 5370.2 and 5514.2.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1872 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Joel H Jenkins died in 1859 in Rowan county. He possessed a large estate and slaves in North Carolina and Arkansas. In total it was said to be worth in the region of [dollars] 250,000 consisting of town lots, lands in Rowan and Iredell counties, valuable land in Arkansas, various solvent notes totalling over [dollars] 100,000, numerous slaves, railroad bonds, stock in the North Carolina Railroad Company, and Florida bonds, all of which passed into the hands of the defendants, Roberts and Davis, as executors. After payment of debts there was about [dollars] 150,000 left. The Supreme Court made an order for an account and settlement of the estate of the testator. Proceedings had unfortunately been commenced in the Superior Court where the judge correctly ruled that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. On appeal, this decision was affirmed and the parties were instructed to make a case to the Judge of Probate. The relief for the three female plaintiffs could not be sought until a trust fund had been set up for them. The three other plaintiffs were not embraced by the trust according to the Supreme Court. There was also a misjoinder in respect of the defendant Davis as he had no concern with the management of the trust fund.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1855 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Appeal from an interlocutory order dissolving an injunction which had been granted upon filing of the bill in the Court of Equity in Randolph county, North Carolina. William Brookshire died intestate in Clarke county, Alabama, in 1842, and the defendant, Abel H Dubose, was appointed as his administrator. The intestate left no wife or issue and the plaintiffs and defendants, other than the administrator, were the next of kin, and under the laws of Alabama they were entitled to a distribution of the estate. Late in 1844, Willie F Brookshire, the plaintiff, with powers of attorney from the other next of kin, went to Alabama to demand a settlement with the defendant. While there, he was induced by the fraudulent representations of the administrator to receive for himself and his principals much less than they were entitled, thus leaving a large balance due to each of them based on an equitable and fair distribution. He received for Newby and his wife, residing in Indiana, the sum of [dollars] 400 and brought this amount for them back with him to North Carolina. Newby and his wife sought to recover one of the slaves belonging to the estate, for the purpose of emancipating him. They had filed a suit in Alabama for this purpose in about 1842. They refused to take the [dollars] 400 as they felt this might prejudice their chances of receiving the slave. After they succeeded in their suit for the slave they also demanded the [dollars] 400 from Willie F Brookshire as part of their legitimate share. Dubose told Willie F Brookshire not to pay them the money and filed suit in Randolph county, North Carolina, and successfully claimed back the money. Willie asked for a proper account and settlement and an injunction against the judgment granting the [dollars] 400 back to Dubose. Dubose argued that nothing was due to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the bill could not be sustained and that the order dissolving the injunction was correct. The administrator, having been appointed in Alabama, could sue in North Carolina only in his individual capacity, but not in his representative capacity, to get back the money that Newby and his wife had refused. This did not give the plaintiff in this action the right to make the defendant provide a full account of his administration in the North Carolina courts. The North Carolina courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter. If the plaintiffs wanted to challenge the administrator in his official capacity then they had to do this in Alabama, the State where Dubose had been given authority to act as administrator.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1867 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The estate of James C Johnston in this controversy was one of the largest in the State and counsel on both sides were eminent and zealous. The questions were numerous, and some of them were intricate. Verdict establishing the will was affirmed. It was decided that the rejection of three testamentary letters as being not part of the will did not render the will unfinished and void. Allegations of partial insanity. Paper dictated by the testator two years after he executed the will explaining his reasoning was held to be evidence of the testator's soundness of mind. The genealogical table in the book was admitted as accurate by the Supreme Court. The will included a provision that my negroes may be taken care of. The estate included considerable lands in Chowan, Pasquotank, Halifax and Northampton counties, mills, houses, plantations, slaves, shares in bank stock, United States stock and loans, North Carolina state stock, Virginia state stock, bonds and other assets. James C Johnston was one of North Carolina's most prosperous planters. He inherited his extensive holdings from his influential father, Samuel Johnston, a native of Scotland who had emigrated to North Carolina with his family as a small child. James C Johnston owned hundreds of slaves.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1852 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This is a supplementary manuscript file for this case. Unsuccessful petition to rehear a decretal order pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. This manuscript case file has the papers covering the repayment of [dollars] 2,013.81 by Lane and Durand in 1853, with receipt for this amount, following their loss of this case. The will of William S Morris had directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the Court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. For the main manuscript file relating to this case, see case 6180.2; for another supplementary file, see 5370.2.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1867 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The estate of James C Johnston in this controversy was one of the largest in the State and counsel on both sides were eminent and zealous. The questions were numerous, and some of them were intricate. Verdict establishing the will was affirmed. It was decided that the rejection of three testamentary letters as being not part of the will did not render the will unfinished and void. Allegations of partial insanity. Paper dictated by the testator two years after he executed the will explaining his reasoning was held to be evidence of the testator's soundness of mind. The genealogical table in the book was admitted as accurate by the Supreme Court. The will included a provision that my negroes may be taken care of. The estate included considerable lands in Chowan, Pasquotank, Halifax and Northampton counties, mills, houses, plantations, slaves, shares in bank stock, United States stock and loans, North Carolina state stock, Virginia state stock, bonds and other assets. James C Johnston was one of North Carolina's most prosperous planters. He inherited his extensive holdings from his influential father, Samuel Johnston, a native of Scotland who had emigrated to North Carolina with his family as a small child. James C Johnston owned hundreds of slaves.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1836 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In an effort to apprehend a group of runaway slaves responsible for great outrages, several magistrates of Gates county met between terms of the county court and ordered that a reward of [dollars] 1,600 be offered for the capture of the four slaves, or [dollars] 400 for each one. The plaintiffs claimed that they, together with one Collins, had apprehended three of the slaves, but that they were unable to recover their reward because Collins had fraudulently dismissed a suit brought to recover it. The prayer of the suit was for [dollars] 1,200 for the three slaves; the defendants were the magistrates who had offered the reward. The Supreme Court ruled that though it was admitted by all sides that the magistrates had not enjoyed the power to commit the county to offering the reward as they had been sitting outside the regular terms of the court, it did not concur with the plaintiffs' assertion that the magistrates therefore bound themselves personally to pay the reward. The bill was dismissed, though the court advised the plaintiffs that if they had a well-founded claim against the county, it ought not to be doubted but that, on proper application, they will obtain full justice.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1851 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This is a supplementary manuscript file relating to this case. It has a letter dated 9 April 1859 in which H C Roberts writes to E B Freeman to get some papers from Craven relating to the cases of M C Bogey v Roderick Shute et al and Samuel Masters v J D Thomas et al in which the appeal was ordered to be reformed, which it appears were then sent back by E G Haywood. The question of lot 415 in Newbern comes up and the need for it to be partitioned between various parties. A small part of the lot belonged to Thomas Jenkins. Roberts wants to know who received the portion from William S Morris's estate as a consequence of the case of Green v Lane and Durand case in 1851 and what was the amount received?. The 1851 case related to the will of 1831 of William S Morris of Newbern and his codicil of 1838, with reference to his emancipation of some slaves in 1828 in Pennsylvania which was made void because he brought them back with him to North Carolina. The Supreme Court decided that Patsy, Harriet and Freeman and Harriet's son, William Henry, were still slaves, even though Patsy, Harriet and Freeman had been again taken to Pennsylvania in 1850 and set free by the defendants who were the executors of the will. Their value had to be accounted for by the defendants. They were still slaves and the trusts for their benefit, including the property left to Patsy, were not valid. The gift to William Henry Morris of [dollars] 1,000, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of three other town lots left, also failed. For the main manuscript file relating to this case, see case 6180.1; for another supplementary file, see 5514.1.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1824 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Deceit in the sale of a runaway slave. It was alleged that the slave was suffering from consumption. The defendant said that the plaintiff knew this before making the purchase and suggested that the plaintiff's wife had been taking food to the runaway slave in secret whilst the slave had been lurking around the plaintiff's buildings, prior to the sale. It was also claimed that the plaintiff knew that the slave was a runaway before the purchase was made. The lower court ruled in favour of the plaintiff having refused to allow the evidence concerning the plaintiff's wife. For this reason the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower court on a split decision, though Justice Hall dissented.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1838 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: It was alleged by Caroline in trying to assert her freedom that there had been a county court order in New Hanover procured by George Burgwin in November 1809 freeing both her mother, Marian, and Caroline, then an infant aged two. The clerk of the court had no recollection of ever seeing a written petition to this effect. The defence brought as evidence (given by the sheriff of New Hanover county) that in 1820 Caroline was sold to John R London who took her to his residence in Wilmington. Another witness was brought to give evidence of a being a security to the defendant for a hire agreement in 1833 at the request of Caroline's mother. Trespass against earlier emancipation of slave. Had the original emancipation been carried out as stipulated by the laws of the State? Suit was brought to invalidate the emancipation of a slave, because, being but two years old when liberated and being freed along with her mother, she could not have performed meritorious services. The Supreme Court held that the act of liberation was that of a court of conclusive jurisdiction, and could not be impeached by evidence that she had not and could not perform such services. It also decided that a petition of an owner to free slaves need not be in writing, and that in an action by a negro to try his right to freedom if evidence of his being reputed to be a freeman is offered it is admissible to show in reply acts of ownership inconsistent with reputation. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict against Caroline in the lower court and called for a new trial.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1846 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This case follows on from Newlin v Freeman et al, June 1841 (manuscript case 2999). Before marrying, the defendant Richard Freeman and Sarah Foust signed an agreement that each should keep their own property during the marriage. Sarah owned several slaves and a piece of land on which she lived, which under the agreement she enjoyed full power to sell or will to whomever she might choose. During the marriage Sarah bought 200 more acres from her husband using the profits of her existing estate. By her will, Sarah Freeman devised most of her estate to the present plaintiff, John Newlin, and made him her executor, having previously conveyed much property to him to hold in trust for her. After Sarah's death, the courts pronounced in favour of her will as one of personal property but not as one of real property; Newlin then filed the present bill against Richard Freeman and Sarah's next of kin in an effort to have the will declared valid in respect of real property as well. Richard Freeman's answer alleged fraud on the part of Newlin and undue influence on his part on the mind of the testatrix. The Supreme Court found substantially in favour of the plaintiff, observing that Sarah Freeman's will was drawn up with the long-entertained purpose of effecting the emancipation of her slaves.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1852 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This is the main manuscript file for this case. The Supreme Court appeal of 1852 was a petition to rehear a decretal order, made by Chief Justice Ruffin in December 1851 in the same court, pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. The will directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs, were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. There are also two supplementary manuscript files for this case: see 5370.2 and 5514.2.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1839 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Slave, George, charged with breaking and entering the smokehouse of Kincaid during the night and taking a quantity of pickled pork. He was called to appear at Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, but he failed to appear. Recognizance of [dollars] 100 was therefore forfeited. The defendant pleaded that the recognizance was void because the larceny case needed to be tried in the Superior Court. When the Court ruled against the defendant he appealed without success to the Supreme Court.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1854 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Will and codicil of Nathaniel P Thomas. Lucy and her children were removed to Ohio as free persons as per the terms of the codicil. The latter had been written in case the provisions for emancipation under the will were void under the terms of the laws of North Carolina. This turned out to be the case and the provisions of the codicil were held to apply instead. The slaves could be transported to Ohio. The executor provided some funds for this purpose. Lucy also applied to the court to get further funds as set out in the original will to provide for a suitable home and support for her and her children. The court ruled that they were not entitled to the fund produced by the sale of the mill tract and the Crowder tract as their emancipation under the codicil was a substitute to the provisions of the will. The terms of the will no longer applied, only the provisions of the codicil which stated a sum sufficient to provide for their removal [..] and for their comfortable settlement.
Download or read book North Carolina Supreme Court Raleigh written by and published by . This book was released on 1851 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The is the main manuscript file for this case. Case regarding the will of 1831 of William S Morris of Newbern, his codicil of 1838, with reference to his emancipation of some slaves in 1828 in Pennsylvania which was made void because he brought them back with him to North Carolina. The Supreme Court decided that Patsy, Harriet and Freeman and Harriet's son, William Henry, were still slaves, even though Patsy, Harriet and Freeman had been again taken to Pennsylvania in 1850 and set free by the defendants who were the executors of the will. Their value had to be accounted for by the defendants. They were still slaves and the trusts for their benefit, including the property left to Patsy, were not valid. The gift to William Henry Morris of [dollars] 1,000, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of three other town lots left, also failed. There are also two supplementary manuscript files for this case: see 5370.1 and 5514.1.