Des Arc weekly citizen., 1867-08-17
Liability on Notes for the Purchase
 of Slaves.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
 GEORGIA.

Among me recent decisions of the supreme court of Georgia, there is one that deserves some special notice. The case was substantially as follows:
 In November, A. D. 1857, the plain tiff in error, John F. Tucker purchased of Mir. H. l.. Toomer, of this state, a number of slaves. To secure the pay ment of the purchase money he execu- ted his bond, with personal security, and also mortgage of the negroes purchased and a mortgage of valuable plantation. The bond became due prior to the secession of Georgia from the federal union. It was not paid at maturity. During the war payment was offered in Confederate currency, but not received.
 The slaves remained in Fuckers pos session until they were emancipated by the authority of the United States, and by this act of emancipation ceased to be of value as property.
 Suit was commenced 10 foreclose the mortgage of the plantation. This was resisted upon the ground that the bond for the securing of which the mortgage was given was executed to secure the purchase money of these slaves, and was also secured by mortgage of the negroes themselves. That, upon the non-payment of the bond at maturity, the condition of the mortgage of the negroes was broken, and these became the property of the seller, and being his in the eye of the law at the time of emancipation, that the loss must fall upon him, and not upon the purchaser. ltwas further urged that it was an in- herent and necessary part of the sale, that the negroes conveyed were slaves for life. and that whatever impeached this condition, whether the act of the government, or of any other power or person. was, in fact, breach of the implied warrenty, raised by the law on account of the peculiar character of the property and the relation of things.
 It was again contended that even these positions were not we'll founded, that the loss should be mutually borne, and should be apportioned between the seller and the purchaser.
 The court below decided in favor of the validity of the bond and the fore closure of the mortgage. From this judgment Mir. Tucker appealed, and the case was ably argued on both sides, before the supreme court. The court has sustained the opinion expressed on the circuit, and dismissed the appeal.
 Harris, justice, in affirming the judg- ment said: "This South Carolina mort gage, sought to be enforced on lands lying in Georgia, can only be regarded, looking to the case made by the record, as security for the payment of the debt due by Tucker to Toomer for the purchase of large number of slaves.
 "The condition of the mortgage being broken by Tucker, the legal title was thereupon vested in the mortgage only for specified purposes, and does not, therefore, operate as payment.
 "The absolute ownership of the ne- groes purchased by Tucker of Toomer, in November, 1857, (the possessing never having changed after the sale,) continued to abide in Tucker until, by the acts of the United States govern ment, they were made free, the loss then must be borne by him.
 "There is not fact stated in the re. cord which would justify any court in apportioning the loss sustained by the emancipation of the slaves between the vender and vendee."