Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-07-25
Decision of the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court.
DIOCESAN MILLIGAN, JAMES {. SHACKELFoRD,
AND ALVIN HAWKINS.
THOMAS H. Caldwell, Attorney General and Re
porter.
BROWN, ct al, vs.. BIBB, Ct al
Inc T[ 81 nstitptJ by Philemon Bibb sarah Ander
son and Susan Webb the goth Of April ls59-the one
anpb The form Of both actions debt with the ndaus
assump and quantum yaleban counthe former Tor the
Brown, and the latter for the price OF slave ttea
alleged to have been sold and DELIVERED 70 hen b
suits are maintained upon the principle deSdd by tho court
in Alsbrook VS. Hathaway executor, Sueed Isl namely
where the property taken and converted
the may waived and an actlGn OF debt SUPPORTED Tor
The actions being consolidated were heSri Iy ne
Circuit Court upon agreed case from which tie following
facts appeared February 1913, John Blob citizen and
resident of Virginia died Inestae leaving ms Eao% susan
nah Bibb children who the defendants IN error
the said Philemon w then being ten years oiae SaTah Il
and susan years Of age his only heirs and dsrbu
tees and which resided in Virginia At his death the
said John the iamOng other slaves oil the ne
gro ha 49, had mon his estate in Virginia or elsewhere
tratlon was ever nSu uPI ~ a,v+ e. Tho IoV eth
land slaves. In November sl the widow with heI
three children above named removed from Virginia to Ken
ucky carrying with them the Lette and Ann In
1886 the widow sold in Kentucky the Le to one Joseph
duly registered conveying him the entire slave absolutely
With him where She is at present adversely
ybody up his death, (which was IN ls and 10y h
housn, w. ~ In Anil Is55 the widow oIi in Tennessee
by bill of sale which was duly registered the negro Eliza
Jane child negro Ann to the other plaintiff in
ror Joseph Brown conveying slave absolutely
and he has adversely everybody since The sales
Hough and Brown as to hem made bona hdeand
for valuable consideration and without kno"ge on their
part the claim interest of defendants in error
1924 the said Sarah married Thomas Anderson yho
died 1870 leaving her his widow and she has remaine IN
married to this time In s2y the said susan G
these suits In 1857 about the last Of tn
of May the widow, susannah Bbb depars this life in
The Circuit Judge Of opinion that the claim Of the
plaintiffs below the twO-thrs Of tho value of tb Iys
in controversy, barred by the statute Of mitats
but 70 the remaining one-thrd On ch he widow
had life esate, they were ene5 to From the
judgment given in pursuance Of t opinion, defendants
By the Virginia. in 1913 aIways as az common,
upon decednts DEATH the legal title to personal
and slaves have been personality there gl de-
voved upon his administrator in trust fst 10
pay his debts and afterward distribute legates and dis
allegiance until administrator appointed and no one mot
Distribute, rightfulIy take possession OF the
.The widow Is one Of the distributes of an inte-tte
alter payment debts the surplus when
there are Children shall no more than the se for
her life of such slaves shall be her share this has
designated by dover or Other
phrae-parakesof theiuature personality and IS to adj
mlntered ana distributed upon principles applicable 20 that
species of estate No particular allotment of the widow
share OF the personally seems requisite as no case OF dover
She indeed rghtully appropriate without the as
of the personal representatives Of d@cnt that assem-
unielsonabIy withheld the reverse Of the widow like that ~
any other distributes, is to court OF equity.
he ping in view the foregoing principles which fem such
correct statement Of rgna law apprchend that the
complexion Of the present case Is determined by the
law.
The widow having right to thu possession the slaves
lover her onethrd part in the absence any grant
mlnraton was we t3he ~ an e1ecutl,s &c son TO- and he
aienees would be equally wrondoes and IN no better cOn
ton. But having the they hold against any
person creditor administrator Of the ccedent-beu
liable the first dc .Jt second
he is the representative Of the deceased upon
nun or sne ne ~ tS mn " a. r. in among tne
tees neither these relations, and therefore, cannot
distribution Of it from any person save tho aImnistTato
BIZ
alike law and in equity, court through E in
they would Themselves thereby become executors SOC t
which implies wrongful interference with the property of tho
ntestate Thurman vs. shelton, 10 Yer. 80 Goode
Goode, MurPh, 535 Humphreys rs Humphreys, par.
mon law rule aGd which prevails uRHy 10 tennessee and
Virginia this case obvated by cur act II 1877 ch o.
snc its passage Tennessee do other personal
estate the personal representative but descend the
tors. But at the common law neither 7ass dJutsss
acquire any property IN the goods OF the deceased until the
nchoate right to the surplus after the payment
the 1t only right of action the property re-
Hooper and wife, Cooks Rep. 2O2ni If logatee Ia keq
possession Of the thing devised OF the distribute # his bu
tive share without the assent Of the adiusra
tor the may be- the latter have action
pass against hln Bac AO ~ rms was the la OF both
Virginia and Tennessee tho time Of the deeeus ea!h
and yet except the latter State shares more than
thirteen years after the ntesate5 deathhs rule NOT chang
ed by the above statuteanterOr to which held by
away dispose of he thought proper the tho
ceients, if there be collision, COC 20 As before stated
ne sV 6 IOs IA n 5 az not 51 F t .' Of
Assembly was intended to have any application to case like
the present II does not 20 puport and without discussing
the Of the Legislature to have given this act retriever
tive on the facts before sislat touching
property and persons abroad as were there sufficient
say that it bears such construction Dash VsnkIeech
| 7 Johns, Us, smith V. Brady, Yer. fI--i-g.
traon, tho ntestate having been dead thirty years.
SO as to AFFORD the parties remedy it, indeed herd
after such delay but to this cannot look 1851
shaptsr2+ section 5l chapter So section Code section
If appeared that administration had been granted m TIN
estate or upon search that evidence Of the grant found
widows share had been assigned her then long cC1tin
and her use Of the slave as her own might perhaps under
the circumstances Of this justify suUposition she held
dren be enjoyed at her death. Administration and Inc as
assent Of the personal representative possession Of the
Ia wfu might be presumed Rddhoover et vs. Kiuard adj
mnlstrstor, ct al HIs, ch -, 37j But here it eprs
that The -ido part had a9fe her, thus destroying
all room for presumption and showing possession
the widow could originally have been otherwise as
wrong doeT 1t not stated that possession contin
ued from the nteststes DEATH to the sales before redbut
perhaps TINS IS fairly TO be inferred from the agreement Of facts
nor Is 1t shown that the children held possession with her
gIt were IL reasonable to 0eeTG they 75t ~ .n aly IN
I'll they came of married and then it It Is not per.
long continued those Of the plaintiffs 70
and that Of their vendor, unle. 1t were shown that Ill
done How know that the clai- DGs Shs i
been sxtingushed? The long and ti 10y SCI up has
defendants furnish eyiIec. that this snce OF
the other slaves and property Of the estaetbe @ sl
IT, on the other hand, there was any anaIo- I.t a.,
share Of wldo" IN the slaves, dover in rs,I
land we think there IS nOne still understand me
virginia as was the common law 10 be that until her dove
was assigned he-she had no title to the possession of %
part Of the an and hence that her or that of ~
alnance as against the heir OrtiOus and -vo an
taneouS cause OF suit The only modification Of this otTi
IN the virginia statutes is the mansion house Of The
band, ard the messuage plan taken thereto b.Io
when the widow authorised to remain until her @ j.,
her husbands lands should be assigned to her and i ~
TINS statute that Chancellor Kent refers in the IN y -
MS Commentaries, g. cd edOnl The common Law in ~
er respects is unchanged. Chapman vs. Arns+goT 49,
jsz-}9S. Moore Us. Gillian, MurB., 3iG-3fs app
The result 10 the Judgment Of the Circuit Court ,ut Ia
reversed, and Judgment given for the defendants beI -
the agreed WRIGHT Ia aO'
0 'P " SP'eNa as the opinion OF this conrt
Attest: ]. G.. FRAZER Clerk. S' ""Ne"