Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-06-07
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME CouRT.
OFFICIAL.

OFFICIAL.
Decisions OF the Supreme Court OF the
state OF Tennessee at Nashville, Dee
cember Term, 1860.
Arlington and others vs.. Grgson and others.
The eomplainants seek to recover from the de-
fendant Grigson, female slave named sally, &nd
her children, which claimed to be the property
of complainants.
The slave Sally was the property of Claiborne
Wilson, the father of complainants, who died IN
1883 in Smith county. By his will the slave Sally,
with other property, was given to his wife, during
her life widewhood, with remainder to her
children.
The widow Of testator, Margaret Wilson, was
qualified as administrator, with the will annexed,
of the estate in November, 1872.
In 1855. Margaret Wilson, the widow and admin
istratrix presented petition to the Circuit Court OF
Smith, in which she made the children OF the testa-
tor co-plants asking 10 have the slave Sally sold,
on the ground, that by reesOn of her bad temper,
violent passions immoral habits, and refusal to
submit to the discipline and commands Of the petit
toner, she could not be managed; and petitioner
and her children. most of whom were under age,
were afraid to keep her in the family
The slave had given birth TO several children,
before the fling sf the petition, three Of whom,
were then living. For the foregoing reasons It was
alleged in the petition that would be for the inter
est of the remainder interest well as petitioner
to have the slave sold, and the proceeds divided
the widow agreeing in her petition, to take enlos
part of the same
Upon the proof of two Witnesses one of whom
was the defendant Grigson, that owing TO the char
aater temper and habits of the slave, IL would be
for the manifest benefit of the owners, that she
should be sold and sent off from the neighborhood
it was decreed by the court, that she should be
sold: and on the 18th Of may she was accordingly
sold to the defendant Grigson; (the witness upon
whose testimony mainly, the sale was ordered; and
who lived in little mile of the residence OF
l Cos, r.oFo h1O fppd6
The slave is admitted, in the petition, to have
been capable, valuable servant aside from her
temper, dispositions, and immoral habits. she mas
given birth to several other children since the pur-
| chase by the defendant.
Various questions were discussed 1t the bar. We
will confine our consideration of the case to the
question whether the Circuit Court has Jurlsdlc-
| ton to decree the sale.
By the act of 1927, CHI. 81. sec. 2, all sales Of
slaves made contrary 10 the provisions Of that act,
by executors or administrators, are expressly 10 be
void Was this sale under the provisions Of that
act? Clearly not 1t Is true, that it Is incidentally
stated in the petition, that the widow was the ad-
mnistratrix of this estate but the petitioner s not
presented By her. in that capacity; on the contrary
it is an application by her, in her own right, as
owner of the life interest in the slave; IN which
she Joins with the owners of the remainder lntesest
as co-pIainti to have the slave converted and the
proceeds equally divided. solely for the reason that
| the slave had become unmanageGble.
The simple statement of the ground OF lhe eppii-
cation demonstrates that the is not within the
act of 1927, and, consequently the Circuit Court
had no jurisdiction. The Circuit Court by its pre-
sent organization, possesses equity jurisdiction
except such as is expressly conferred upon II by
statute and to maintain its jurisdiction, state OF
facts must be shown exist, falling within the pro
! visions of the statute.
Upon the whole record it Is manifest that the sale
of the slave peculiarly valuable for physical ca
pacity of child>bearing-so far from beng for the
| benefit of the owners of the remainder interest
| was an enormous sacrifce-though IT may have
| been otherwise, as to the life owner.
We perceive no just ground of distinction, under
the statute between the sale of remainder interest
in slaves and land. But the present case does not
| call for discussion of the question.
Nor, need we consider the question at present
whether Court Of Chancery might not have been
competent to grant the relief sought by the peti
ton.
The decree of the Chancellor will be reversed
and decree rendered in favor of complsinants
restoring them to their rights in said slave and her
| increase as they stood before said sale.
But the complainants will be required to refund
purchase money with interest, in the proportions
in which it may have been actually received foi
by them respectively. MCKINNEY.
A correct copy. j. P. CLARK, Clerk.