Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-26


alone znans must Be sser and tie case be rsmandoa
for triAiOHA merits Of the ! l =. ~
Aeorrsct copy j. P. cLARk, csrl -'s, s'i7'-''
Laneastervs- Allsu. Z. s-.-
This vas seton of debt upon bl single tg sian exn
tel BY Lancaster to Allen On he I Of Janaary lssf Thenoe
guardian Gone on sn. hire Of four slaves the pro-
perry Of the ward, for the year lssi,
The suit eomenced before Justice On the 5h September
lS5s and vas taken ~ appeal to Ccuit Court hese Iur
rendered in favor Of the plaintiff Tor The full amount
on he s L vas proved that in aprii, i5 sdss5,st ola
toPlaintG quantity q Plauk and that The 1851
paintiH ara DESCENDANT The te respective sas that
s rss q se psn and @gs vas y Be sPPsd j. Psyea q
The pantH flsa % enter an3 es On the note and refused.
on the trial, abide the Agreement ---l
his honor the Csat Judge. Instructed jury that the
sggrsemn. vas Illegal and could sei es esisee5 Ana ne
not appropriated the money Of the ward, in the hands
OF the defendant TO The asn 9 the individual debt Of Tie
panta he plank and mule purchased for his beneat,
from Defendant, would have wlfn nisappeztOn
the trust nad and would have Involved both parties in direct
Of trust No argnt necessary to establish the
postOny that gdar!an other trustee agree 70 do n act
Justice insist npon the performance Of such
Of the hepeheay and all whs participated it, knoEngiy Will
/ be equally affected By ii.
actually carried into By apply
ing price the Plsnk and nuisas payment the
admission that It might have been operative By way Of e
would not in he least degree mra against tie pOpooa We
have asserted that sxeeusOry agreement the performances
Ihe i1aslasss WIN bs aaar@sa; MeKuar.
Correct copy, J. p CLARK, Clerk
.-- .H...
David Lessenbey Heirs Samuel Hopkins and others
David Less1tery died In hentucky in ISIS leaving
LornIa his widow ana he eoupIainants hs children and esr
Shortly thereafter The widow in,srmarsd with Benjamin
County. commissioners appointed lay sot 10
the said Loani her dover in the slaves OF her deceased hus
band They allotted her Of te slaves Allen.
che other Lncy 2lst August ls0, and the
the possession Of the said Lrana and her second husband AfE
remaining With them two - eaTd that the said
Lucy sold to named Galloway and b him removed
from the state and sold to the defendant Hoklns oms tEen
hys or thirty years ago ene Of the children q Lucy named
Kezsah sold BY Hopkins to LcaerSood the other e
adAut Ina and her husband both died in Is5i and this
bill was filed in March, 1855
The eompainants claim the slaves he ground hath the
laws Of Kentucky their mother only hid alfe esiae aud they
T6e dsfsndau assume two grounds defence. That the
assigned the said Loran dover in her husbands
This ausn OF IDENTIFY which must be decided By the proof
Hopkins admits that he bought girl BY that 0 not
fourteen years od and bsd no Children bat She di IN 1854 ev
ing children, in his POssesson except the one sold to
Joha barlow an old citizen OF Barren County proves that
whenhe young he with Galloway Wit1 I'VE
negroes for sale, Alabama and that one OF them named
Lucy then about fourteen fifteen old we'll be
recsect he thinks that her and he judges Of her
from her appearance Tais gr he says GALLOWAY sold 70
by the Of Bond Bonds living sone eight
miles from Huntsville in Alabama Hopkins says in his answer
that bought girl Lucy Isaac Bonds Madison city,
Alabama lin the ls2u to the best OF his recollection He
says bill Of sale and does not give the time Of the
r.
Thinks but may have been 1871 Neither Hopkins nor Barlow
seem to he certain as to the year striking eoncince
70 whom aiioEay sold and from whom Hopkins bought the
residence Of the purchaser And this shows also that the girl
Bond brought from Kentucky BY Galloway
does not appeor that Bonds owned ote girl slave Of
that namethat IS, there Is proofOn that subject.
Samuel Everett proves that the gi4 Lucy allotted
and that short e after she was missing and he has
SEN her since-Was Informed she sold
proved BY James DOdd that Joseph Galloway bought
had girl upwards Of twenty hFe thirty and
for sale and that he knew him to have @
He also Galloway told him buying this girl
nom Gassoway and the dispute between him and his brothers
relation to the title and what he said about it. but that be
looked to, because IS hsarsay, and was objected to-
The deposition ofGeorge Galloway puts ne dispute
sIs This evidently mistake date the defendant
does not pretend that he bought her from Bonds
There are some dfcuItie as to the dates nproof Of Barlow
desce left upon uind the
enfeAOn Of the slave Lucy This was probably the d
the Clancell3r he expressly places
against Compliments upon the statute Of limitations
g The deendAats solicitor conteads that the right Of
accrued to the comp anants 1890 when the slaves was sod m
the widow her second husband anI removed from
Il conrOvted that the Law Of Kentucky adopted
moshe state Virginia. is that slaves put upon
footing realty to the Widows dover Act 1871, 2Dg l. K
life only with remainder 70 the heirs law Of the deccsse
band saso conceded in the sanction
forfeiture Of the life estate. Sec. %, %.
The defence this point is that at the the date Of tie
v ossoway 10 aoEay, slave from the safe
b the latter right action complain
since teen barred That would enthusiastically 30 il there was
non else in the but that which assumed in the PropO
here is no question better settled, that the law CT The
state where SUI Is or9ugn, no mater snfs e eau Of ae
rpoH or limitation Of action story on Con- Of Laws Sec
Every nation or State right to settle the time
which suits must be brought be gated in its
Courts Saas 57s
The time or the bar then. in which Is fixed by
the Limitation Of Tennessee. The suiE
proper time after the death Of the widow ss than three
the life estate had not been perfected there would que
don but shat the statute would only gn 70 run from the term
first accrued the dsfendant takes his stand
tends Of fOresie Is the period
uey that " in such case that is Whers the husband
permits h removed out the ssts such slaves
shall lawful for him her in n!o possess,
enjoy all the estate which such husband haeth IN right cf
| ~ . - ~ s.j ne &C., ss,S ~ ~ 49, St.fs
right and the mother had Outivrl her husue she
life both dead in this case, and that
rant As to the effect OF this statute in relation TO the
4 question: when the accrued.
~ 10 the Laws o. Kentucky by constructions
Of their courts their statute principle oieon
y, we'll settled international law This must furnish the
coming from Kentucky. Our acts
Of limitation ust be applied, but to the inception aud char
acter o. he , to look to the laws Of thl State Upon
this distinction the case must t2rn I
Sup Ct Of kyas early l that he forfeiture dd not ae
upon sale second husband, IN the State in Of
ng the act to The cse Of removal Of the property by
or beyond the State. Monroe and H0rsn Dig l8 20
Ss Of her mother There Is some question proof
argument whether Galloway purchased the negro from
agent be the character in which he acte
the falls within the act and right to sue accrued to the re-
VeTsioneTs at that time.
nd construction Of their act in such case as
ehtucky held that thOugh the enantor
life forfeit his right the remainernan not bound 70 urge
the forfeiture and time viii not commence to run to the pcs
OF his riqht until the life estate Dig 5
p, citing Kingvs 23; Tom Davis Fngee B.
Monroe These have not been furnihed but We The
principle correctly extracted in the Digest Then in neh
aspect Affect the right OF the complain
We are brought them rresistby 70
the statute Of limitation not IN the way Of
recovery by eomplainants.
ants for the slaves CARUTHE2s.
Correct copy, J. P. CLARK, Clerk.
Daily Line U. s. Mail Packets.
FROM