Case ID: va_29/html/0499-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROCKENBROUGH, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Mann and Others v. Givens and Others.
    November, 1830.
    (Absent Stuart, Smith and Fielid, J.)
    Instrument of Emancipation — Refusal of Court to Admit to Probate — Remedy.—A county court refuses to admit an instrument of emancipation of slaves to probat and record: jrisbi), the circuit court cannot review this judgment, by way of appeal, writ of error or supersedeas.
    Same — Admission to Record. — Qumre, whether an instrument of emancipation of slaves, ought to be admitted to record, on the deposition of a witness non-resident of the state, and on proof of the handwriting of such absent witness, and of another subscribing witness, who is dead ?
    This was a case adjourned to this court, from the circuit court of Botetourt.
    Upon a motion made in the county court of Botetourt on behalf of Mann and others, to admit to record an instrument of emancipation executed by Thomas Reynolds to his slaves therein named, which was opposed by Givens and others, it appeared, that the instrument bore date the 18th October 1797, and that Samuel Mitchell and Mitchell Porter were the subscribing witnesses to it; that Reynolds at the time he executed the instrument, resided in Botetourt; that the subscribing witness Mitchell was now a resident of the state of Illinois; and that Porter, the other subscribing witness, was dead: whereupon, the plaintiffs offered in evidence, 1. a deposition of the witness Mitchell, regularly taken under a commission issued by the court, upon due notice to the defendants, proving the execution of the instrument of emancipation by Reynolds, and Mitchell’s attestation thereof: 2. proof of the handwriting of both the subscribing witnesses: 3. a copy of an order of the district court held at The Sweet Springs, at October term 1797, shewing, that this instrument of emancipation, was then acknowledged by Rej'nolds before that court, and ordered to be recorded ; and 4. an order of the county court of Monroe,* at February term 1821, shewing, that the instrument *of emancipation was then presented to that court, and that that court, upon proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witnesses, and of the death of one of them, and the non-residence of the other, admitted the instrument to record. And this being alt the evidence, the county court of Botetourt refused to admit the instrument to record. An appeal was taken for Mann and others to the circuit court; which adjourned to this court, the following question, Whether this instrument of emancipation ought to be admitted to record, upon proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witnesses, one of whom was dead and the other a nonresident, and the deposition of the nonresident witness? And (as usual in adjourned cases) any other questions of law arising on the record.
    
      
      The district court bad no jurisdiction of the probat and registry of instruments of emancipation, and the circuit courts only succeed to the jurisdiction of the district courts. The county or corporation court of the county or corporation wherein the emancipator resides, has the exclusive jurisdiction to admit such instruments to prohat and record. See the statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. Ill, § 53, p. 433; Givens v. Manns. 6 Munf. 191; Thrift v. Hannah, ante, 300. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   BROCKENBROUGH, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, That the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the case by way of appeal, and the appeal ought to be dismissed by that court; and that it was, therefore, deemed improper to give any opinion on the specific question adjourned from the circuit court.