Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-07
Nasb6ilI, anian anS 9n,rlf1u.
Dallr ssi Eri.wssslg S; agsal.ly s..
OFFICIAL.
Opinions Of tle Supreme CoaTt of she state
of Tennessee at Nashville, Deeember
Term, 1855.


dsnes Ingram snd Others " Henry p Smith aai sazfs
LAs ; STsns sill "a this case as i ea tbs 5 DAY o. Fso
Ingram, against Afrea MeClaa, Jossph smith, D. n Said
ana henry smith, to attach ceriain slaves u es of n
defendant and to have the conplsi atuts' rights there M
and proteca 1hS bill states that te scmp ats eis
under the viii OF Samuel Deoach, o. Johnston uptv Ns-f
Caroline, bearing date the Goth day Of October t0j ID dol
proved and admitted = record IN tho Probate Court % sal
county siter bis dsith-hat coFlanants have day ers
copy Of sad viii in Arkansas where they reside and I a
The same al be done cause tie .estatr
nis SAID VIII beq ueatass two negroes Dtne aud ssiy
daughter Lrcresa, Tracey sper LIE and after her h
end that Of her Usbsnd WIN spsr, to be equaily iyie
between he heirs 81 the ators dsughtzr Polly Ingram an
OK his Jesse Deoach. Tie bill further ALLEGES that Wsn
spcer and his wife Tracy sA iFng5has some years e
Smith, who purchased with know Iainan rigs
that Gesrge smith had since died. thai the deeadant eny
n'n aa TASTY ana several or hsr lies :endants in his
siop-tst defendant JOSEPH Smith, had Emc ire dsne-
TASTY, n ms 20 session thst james smith had Lewis,
" est IA ms esssn and that Aiiret McCain hal Judy
another daughter Of Hy, several children judy IN hi
Lhs el Prays that the ne roes b sttaenei tia
uedans oe oinea rona removing or Opposing q them
that eompainants rights in the rensins de- isred &c.
The defeRiants Nejsin aud Smith, fe ssparst
es' IN Nhleh eael adats tha. n has sesn paper part
Ing TO Be copy on the records the county o Iohn
ston county, North Caroina, Of the last viii and tesaner
samuel Dcoach deceased oaring date ihe 2a u October
leo containing clause quoted In the answers, rent
cal with the clause OF h Wil under which conpsnan claim
one Of tbs negess instead OF Hasty Both further
mil that the said eOPy Purpor to be 6u cered BY the CLERK
Nouly Coaf o johnston county North Carolina, and
that the respondents suppose the viii duly proven and
samitted to reccrd The answers further admit George
Smith purchased froua spicer about the yer 1870 the W.
man Hasty and perhaps the children George smith died
distributes. SIC hahn admits that in possession Of udg
daughter Of Rasy, and her children, having purchased ths
allotted in the distribution Of Geo. Sihs estate Henry
smih admits that ne is in possession q Hay aud nine Of her
e6b the husband Of his sister, SGth to who they
ha been allotted in the division Of George sn estate Ons
whom he allotted The ren vc horn afer he
bought Hasty BothOf these eendus insist Spicer
acquired utle 70 the negroes Daniel Hast, hy virtue
ihe satate Of ni iatons ang The possession
judy before the viii Of 1896 made hat consequently
e5
also dsny that Score smith purchased With knowegeof
Panants claims Kenny = smith stating that he
all necessary parties before Court; at the heirs of
Jesse Decae should oe made parties and for the to
made by demurrer
The defenant Jams M smith nlss an answer denvi, 5.,
he had then. has had slave Lewis in his posen
and no further proceedings had agsns, him
hsve been against Josh smith b5t IN ne
9th day Of April Isl9 complalnans e an srepdd IN
against VIM II Evans, agiag that has Euaene daugh
claims the negro EmeIne In Tsb On bjs wife VIC -sS @
her as of the children Of James ausou who acuulr
ed his claim in right Of his wife children and dsb
tees OF George Smith, Decd and the division Of the ee BE-
longing to the estate
The further admits that since the ing Of tn. lii n
spondsn has understood that said EueliDe daughter of
woman named Hay, who belong claimed to belong 10
the estate OF The late Geo. smith, deceased lie denies all
personal knowledge Of other alleged in the Bin but
refers to and adopts the OF McCn and Hnsy r
On the Is Of March 1851 upon an order OF Court to that H
feet the complanants file amended supp emeatal bill
against me ana heirs q Jesse Dsoach,
Deloaeh Jonu Deloaeh VIM Deoach AMI c. Deoach Of Adams
county, Mississippi" The bill adds There may he other chill
dren OF said Jesse whose names and particular residence
known to eomplanant but the named are an eola
ants can get certain knOsedge TIE prays the Court
10 cause he chdren and heirs OF The said Jesse DoaCh
be made defendants, that publication be as provided by the
rules e tsis Court in Of resident Defendants that
res sougaSin me original bill to &c granted AZ the april
Rules 1853 Proconisso order aksn the Masters once
as to the defendants heirs Of jesse De oash recu that pu
heAiisn hadheen regularly made to teen.
On The 18th June, 1856, the com pauants he sasher
anu 9 sgainst Henry saSes George b.
Ko1er'n administrator o. Alfred AcClAn, deed, and Wn
II Evans in which they aieg the Gng the original bill a
the children heirs DeIoac Who are Interested m he
remainder in said slaves, and add, ' Jil not v
The till proceeds that ri spcer and 5 have rospv
departed this ,, and that eomplnants entitled 10 s
made defendants and required 20 Each Of these de
ienlEts does answer aimtti1g the ming OF the original
the d-ath CT Spic wi, and referring rsy ca tho
former anssers
Proof taken on both Sides and The cause was p, heard
ly Chancellor Ridley al the January t a5s Of the hancery
to deliver the in ieir respective possess the CLERK
Master CT the Court ard directed 90 ae3ouD to he tsk ~
the defendants, Smik Robertson, admir- Evans, uy and
obtained appeal this court.
The cOmplaaaas claim the will Of samuel peF~b
The will. as has been stated before Craftsman Of the
bill when drawn, but the cmpa undertake Ale csr
he copy transcript Of s record
before contains copy Of said bill Immediately following the
original bill and marked exhibit a. thereto Thil cpay is
duly certified by the Clerk OF the Courl Of Pleas and OuaTer
Sessions Of Johnston county North Carolina purpo1g to
under his hand and seal OF oae although scroll or seal
appears in the transcript TIE auihncaon Of tie lerk s
accompanied by the certificate OF the Chairman the Court Of
Fea and quarter Sessions to the Official cha gcler Il the Clerk,
and the iah aud credit due acts and this again IS
followed by the tifate OF the Clerk oca earc;er
9Th Of May lSt5 At the hearing tie cause before the Chan.
eor the defendants objected to the reading of copy the
vii! In question: beause not authn ated according laE
and "heeause The said paer had not ei Court accord
ing to law" The Chancellor oveuuei tie Oecons per.
nto7d s copy 10 be read and the deetints tnleed their bill
Of exceptions, which signed accordingly ectons are
anfty too general and cannot avail the defendants
ths teAns OF ms Court * has been repeatedly held. t the
lection made 70 the reading Of evidence exhibits in the
court below must be Gear and specific, and his
es n nAs te opposite party may hsve the opportunity Of cur
ing the defect be and h taken b surprise
that opportunity longer be had. urged that the
certificate OF the Clerk Is insufficient for Of seal and that
the exhibit hsd during the the auss was
hue 1t does not appear from the bill Of exceptions that either
OF these exceptions was made could have
Court below Neither objection showing
~ oi Of excepons mat H was distinctly taken in The Cunrt
below and the absence Of the seal the transcript
ings and proof the defendants not be benefited by the
cluson Of the copy OF the will objected answers as we
uy proved and admitted recori and that contains
clause identical with that which the eompanans RELY ex
the Of Hester instead Of Hasy The proof eoncusss
that the tesatOr had such slave Hester ner
to whose there is discrepancy the testimony The
defendants themselves sdit nat Hasty hter
good title ssty, By virtue OF gift him OF Jenny By
samuel Deoah We have n doubt therefore, tia these pre-
mnay objections are merely formal and DO no. affect the
merits OF the controversy.
The in Samuel Deoachs EIl upon which the com
planants rely, IS as follows:
a." give and bequeah daughter Tracy spcer during her
natural life two negroes Daniel AMI asy, which negroes after
her death, and the death her husband give to he qsy
divided between the heirs Of Jesse and daneI Polly
Ingram p"
The digestion the coupanants claim under this
clause is that DANIEL and Has the children OF nero
slave named Jenny that Jenny had been given pcrr
and wife many before the making this will that Srr
bad acquired title t1 Jenny and had actually sold
the will made and that the tessor had in right
Jenny's children Be he thus undertook be1ueath them On
the other hand is insisted that Jenny geu only
length OF possession BY the husband and wife laws
North Carolina, would aft-ba the sale of
Jenny was with the assent Of The eatoand that the
did acu y own Daniel and asty at his death These
having all taken in the State Carolina
among parties then living in that State the rghs Of the parties
must depend the local applied the
record. The questions of law involved have bern e
edy passed by The Courts Of North Carolina and ara not
in reality seriously controverted
''I has long been settled, says Henderson J. ain Collier Va
Poe, Dew E So by the decision courts that usrs1t
puts property into the possession Of child WHO aout
70 les1e ne ssn properly rs presumed to be given, and
cot loaned to the child ard therefore, purchase creditors
have it to their claims whatever have len the
private understanding Of the parties. But this
2 dcf ana not OF tG1o Cleay, therefore, between parties
and all others who cannot impuie either or actual aad TO
the transaction the act nav be shown M was
held that that II the established AZ matter
fact the statute Of Limitation would operate upon he nus
banis possession, although he had some OF the "a s
and Notwithstanding MS declarations that ED for him
se He cOud not, by bis throw character OF
aee These principles have repeatedly laid down by the
Of North Carolina upon parole baent
slaves prior to their act Of lsO6 Mitchell CheBs ay
l2o cameron vs. Gay, DeY Eq II; Hill vs. Hughes. Dgv.
& Bat L. 3j6; Green Harris Ire l. 2iO Accordingly, a
continuous possession BY The husband Of twenty years Collier
Pee and Of forty vs. srTis WAS hel in
sufficient title In him, although in each case the husband
publicly claimed the negroes, aud disposed them.
actual demand b tne b4il0r and refusal the con
sdeed necessary 70 an adverse holding, upon which the
statute OF limit ,tions could operate.
WITH these principles before there little dcuy In
settling The rights OF the parties the facts Of this II
is shown that william spcer inter married with Tracy Dsl0c
then only fourteen Of about the 1880