Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-12-14
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme

F. w. HoADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW. oaiiy H. oanders' 1ppeal from
 vs Drew c. c. in sam'l G. Sanders, ct al chanceyy.
 This was a question of jurisdiction. The appellant IS the owner of negro man, Jerry, which negro was levied on under sundry executions and attachments, issued against one Samuel Sanders, at the suit of the appellees, and under which he was taken out of her possession and would be sold to satisfy the debts of the said Samuel The appellant filed a bill in the court of equity, praying an injunction and the re- storation of the negro. On demurrer the bill was dismissed, and Mrs. Sanders ap- pealed.
 The court held:
 1st. That so much of the decision in the case of Louese G wye ys. Longmire, l4 Ark., 339, as lays down the rule, "that court of chancery has no jurisdiction to en- join the sale of slaves, held as the separate property of the wife, under an execution against the husband," is ouerruled.
 2d. When on an execution against A., the slaves of B are taken, is entitled to an injunction; and is not forced to permit the execution to proceed and resort to his legal remedy for damages
 Decree reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
 "m, 1o H"r0oroush'( Appeal from Qua Arnold, guardian. "'''"' ''''
 This was an action of replevin for a slave named Tom, brought in the Ouachita Cir cuit Court by RaJus 4. Arnold and acite, Mildred h., and other minors, by Arnold as their guardian, against Wna. Ydrborough. The suit was commenced in August, 1853, and the slave sued for is described in the declaration as being man of dark con- plexion and about twenty-five years of age The case was tried upon the pleas of non detino and property in defendant, verdict for plaintiffs, motion for new trial over- ruled, bill of exceptions and appeal by de- fendant
 The court held:
 lst. Declarations made by persons in possession of personal property, explana- tory of the character of the possession or the title by which it is held etc., are com petent as part of the res geste.
 2d. In civil cases when the mischief of an erroneous conclusion is not deemed re- mediless, 1t is not necessary that the minds of the jurors be freed from all doubt, 1t is their duty to decide in favor of the party, on whose side the weight of evidence pre- ponderates and according to the reasona- ble probabilities of the truth. It is suffi- cient if the evidence agrees with and SUD- ports the hypothesis which 1t is adduced tc prove, etc.
 Judgment of the court below affirmed n''%'' vs. App,o, from Laurence. sls. Boothe,)
 This was an action of trover brought by Boothe against Estes, in the Lawrence cir cult court for the conversion of a coag ana cof. This case had been before the SUI preme Court. See Bo0the vs. Estes, 1f 1rk., l04 before remanded and again sub mitted to jury. The court excluded cer. tain evidence and defendant excepted The court he{d:
 1st. Where A purchases property of I under an execution issued upon valid and subsisting judgment, by the sale and pur- chase, B's title to the property is divested and if the magistrate has the legal power at subsequent period to grant B a hear ing in the attachment suit, allows him tC disprove the debt and set aside the iudg ment, 1t would not affect the validity ot the sale and purchase of the property under the judgment while it was in full force, ol revest the title to the property in B. His remedy is upon the bond which is required by the statute to be entered into before the execution can be sued out upon the judg ment in the attachment suit.
 2nd Whether troyer for conversion of animals, or assumpsit for their value Is the proper remedy upon the breach of the con tract of bailment, Is question to be decided by the court. as matter of law, and not by the jury as question of fact.
 Judgment of court below affirmed. Jas. Vaughn admr'' Appeal from oua- IVY chita circuit court
 This was on a bill filed for an injunction etc, and for the recovery of a slave named Jenny, and children, eight in number, with hire. The cause was heard upon the plead ing and evidence at the October term, 1856 the bill dismissed for want of equity and Vaughn appealed.
 I 1ke court held.
 1st. Where apt words are used in will to exclude the marital rights of the hus band, the words "chiIdren she may leoyt Surgtging Her." when construed in connec- tion with other expressions contained il the bequest, are clearly words of purchase and not of limitation.
 2nd An infants contracts are none o1 them absolutely void, that is, so far void that he cannot ratify them after he arrives at the age of legal ajority.
 3rd. The mere fact that an infant does not disalfirm contract after he attains his majority, Is not of itself a confirmation, but this fact may be made significant by circumstances.
 4th It would be extending the rule farther than the authorities warrant, to hold that mere inaction after person reaches the age of legal majority (more than four years) amounts to the ratification of an i'm prudent contract of sale made during in fancy
 5th. Though one does not disafirm such contract during her life, her administra- tor can do 1t for her.
 Judgment of the court below reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to the court to reinstate the bill; and decree to the appellant, in his representative ca pacity, one half of the slaves in controversy, and one half of the reasonable value oi their hire from the time of the death ot .Sarah Coor the tenant for life, making a just allowance in favor of the appellee fol his care, trouble>and expense of raising tn. young negroes, etc.
 For the True Democrat
 PINE BLUFF, Dec. :, 1859