Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-01-13

e. did actually convey bis son George IN
ch trust to secure his creditors.
y, But in the midst OF his peclnlary diff
ed culties, more insuperable embaTass-
m ment intervened. His health gave way,
he aud after a protracted illness he died,
nit without having emancipated his children
OF leaving a will behind him. The de-
4, fendant, BlaekmOre, being large credi-
~ tor, administered on .his estate, which
he was found, without holding complainants
If as his slaves and property, 10 be hope
IN fully insolvent Judgments had been
taken against the old man in his life time
T. and after hisdeath executions were issued
Df and levied on George and Martha, two
r. of the cOmpiainants, and they were con-
: fined in the county Jail to await a sale
b under execution
3 Under this state Of facts this bill was
If filed, setting Up the rights Of the COM
d plainants to their freedom, under
3 the agreement of their father with
n Thomas \. Porter in his life time,
r. which was, as it is insisted, after
e their purchase by their father again
e by him, confirmed by a parole promise
4 and agreements; and praying that by
e attachment they be taken into custody
e and hired out by the master, or restored
= "a their mother until their rights could
7 be declared.
Inc answer OF the administrator, ana !
/ other auditors who are made, parties, |
{ either denies the essential allegations in /
the bill, or insists on their proof It is |
+ admitted that George Porter, sen, had |
purchased and fully paid for complain
ants, but it denies that he ever made Ia
complainants any agreement or promise
of their freedom, which a court of equity /
would enforce, and insist that complain
ants are property assets in the hands OF
their fathers administrator, which may
fully be applied 70 the payment Of his
debts
The chancellor dismissed the bill, and
ordered complainapts to be delivered up
10 the administrators, TO be subjected %
I the payment of the fathers debts From
/ which an appeal in error is prosecuted 10
/ this Court
/ Since the appeal in this case, the war,
Of which this court Is bound 10 take Judi ,
cial notice as agreat historic fact, has in
tervened, and the people, by an amend
ment b the Constitution Of the State,
has settled forever the rights of the com
plainants. They now need no reversal
ofthe chanceilor's decree to save them
from the hands Of the administrator or
10 perfect the cherished purpose Of the
life OF their father. They are free hv the {
fiat ofthe nation, ratified and confirmed
by the people Of the State.
The decree of the Chancellor need not.
therefore, be reviewed, except so far as 10
l. necessary 10 the adjudication of the -
costs in this cause. And the only ques-
tion in this class Of eases that is now
open in Tennessee for discussion, is really
a question Of fact. The law, by a series
of well considered and uubrOken decis-
ions Is well settled. In this State ii is
clear, before the abolition of slavery.
10y the adoption OF the amended con =,
that the master could not L
his slave without the consent
Of the State. But it is equally clear on
well settled principles, as well at COM 81
mon law As by the current Of our own \,
that the owner can part y
with his right TO property in his slaves, i'
and thereby vest them with an mchOate
right for freedom. ''This may be doneu
says this court in the case of Lewis u.s.
-lnanlan, eight Hump, one hundred
md eighty-five, "Ly deed or will or
wen by parol contract with the Z
layes, and if in either of these modes l
he master has parted with his right
nothing remains 10 be done 10 entitle
he slave To his freedom bat the g.
SSeut OF Government. But although the ~
light of the slave 10 freedom is imperfect
nd incomplete until the assent OF the
tate has been manifested by the proper
ribunsl constituted by law, and intrusted
-ith the discretionary power in giving .
lch assent, yet the legal character and
O1dIuOn OF the slaves is changed His
alatiOns to his toriaer master, and 10 the
are likewise changed. Bv
le act of the master imparting to him
n imperfect right TO freedom, he ceases
} be in a state and condition ui slavery
ceases 10 have an owner or master
ithin the meaning Of the law
In the cas6 OF Lewis, q a., as. Daniel, The
ten Hump, three hun
red and five, which arose on the con
ruction Of a will that directed the
of certain slaves, on the
lndition thar they We're, by law, per d,
lifted TO remain in the State, and if =
ley We're not, by law, permitted 10 re-
lain in the State free, then they were
rscted absolutely TO Daniel, the ex-
-utOr.
In the case ofJudge Turley, in deliver
X the opinion of the court, said " We D.
ave heretofore held that device of do
eHdGm was a substantial thing, whether
be recognized by the State or not, and
at no one but the State can interfere in n
latiOn theretO.n
" Upon what principles, then, can the
.ecutOr dsyisee object ts shis emancipa- Gil
ln, unless it oe that the emancipation
.nnot be effected by layEo The slaves
ave acquired a right to their freedom PHI
rhCat5, and they have the right 10 ask
e protection of the law therefor, a. far
it is given; they are not 30 be estoppea Bu
the fact that the donor, in a different
ause of his VIII, has devised them to
p executor if they cannot be emanci- Po
tied 50 as 20 remain in the State. II
ey choose 10 go out of it, what right
a. the executor devisee 10 complainr Aud
one i'm our estimation, whatever D cles,
Tho SANE atFinaizls KrE5 .r...s,. 10Y
led ia the caspOf Laura Jane as. Hagan
imiuisirator, ten Hump, three hun ae
ed and thirty-tWO, and ali the cases a.,
viewed and improved in still later
Sc, reported in first Sneed, Boone as.
lncaster, next friend, vtc, five hundred
ID seventy eight. The principle in all
ess cases is well settled, that the owner
a slave may part with his right Of pro- BU
rty in his slave by deed, by will, or even
parole don't act, when 10 is estab-
he'd by a clear and satisfactory proof
at the master or owner has voluntarily
tered into it. The right is vested
he, and although the assent of the State M
necessary to perfect it, no one but the us g
ate can take advantage of IL, not even sum
e owner or master after the right is ven
zee vested. A Court of Chancery, if buy.
e right IS once vested, will interfere to TAge %
event its defeat Elias ct a., as. stat
NTH, g, at., sixth Hump, thirty-three. eoul
In this ease there can be no doubt Of Tool
e existence Of a Parol agreement be- yite, fse
'een Thomas y. Porter, iDhis life time, JaI
III the cOmplaipants' father, George -
nrteT- sen. that he was 30 have the
iyilege OF purchasing his children
r the purpose of emaucipatmg them &C.
ld although Thomas \. Porter died
fore this agreement was fully cOnsum-
ated, il is clear, from all The facts and
attendant ON the adj NJ
inistratOT's sale, at which George M
'rter, sen, formerly bought his children,
at the distljbuie5- AID bvslanders
oked pPoa IL IS q purchase Of his chill ME-,
EMS freedom. The price paid was
ealy below their market value. and X,
e father had Tor years prev,oHs been ENG
-uSghng 10 achieve Us very object. All
was tue 4oedthR i.drpose Of his life, and de
% oiniau'..,y sympathizing with him, v.,f
D. appears from the bidding at the
le, were willing 30 see him ac-
'mplish il on the cheapest terms pos ~
ale. True, afterwards, in his extreme ~
which seem TO have
Iowed him from this very purchase,
ID his great solicitude to reform his dis Nos
pated son, George, he, on more than
ne occasion, proposed to sell George,
I'D did finally convey him, with other
'operty, IN trust, to secure the pay
ent of his debts. Bnt in his various ~
nversations with his attorney and I.ta,
10 witness in this cause, he always in6
proved the removal OF George south,
ID expressed a hope that he would re- ~
rH, and an earnest desire that his re- rs
rmation should be effected at home,
here he would be under his contract
he circumstances going 10 establish NJ
e settled purpose Of the father to TN
nancipate coEiPlainants and that
ev so understood it, that it is
lpassihie to resist the conclusion Pan
at there was 30 this effect dis
net understanding, If not an agreement
terms, between the parties. The pur-
,se of the father thus clearly APP 81 L
airing, a court OF ehancery viii ne
AXE every presumption in favor Of 81 81,
imam freedom, and look at the real sub
anoe Of things-at the very purpose X
III intention Of the parties, and viii I'm
,t suffer mere legal forms and techni- Jew
.lities, or the dress and drapery of trans Spee'
'tiuns, to battle the ends aimed at We Fifss
include, therefore, ON the whole ease, Dun
at the administrator had no control nc
NN