North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh PDF full book. Access full book title North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh by . Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
The bill was filed against the defendant as the guardian of the plaintiff for an account and settlement of the sum owing to him under the will of his father, Joseph Branch. The will provided for the sale of lands in Tennessee and all other property except for the slaves and the contents of 5 trunks which were reserved for the children. The will included instructions for the education of his children and for the hiring out of slaves. It had a provision that stated I desire that such of my negroes, as may be necessary to wait on and attend to my children, go with them to North Carolina. I greatly desire that my negroes shall be humanely treated, and should prefer, if it can be done, that they be hired out, privately, to humane persons, even at a less price, and, if possible, in families together. His brother John Branch, Laurence O'Brian and Henry R W Hill were appointed as guardians, trustees and executors. The question debated by the court was whether the costs of educating and maintaining the children was to be a joint charge upon the aggregate profits of the estate or whether such support should come out of their separate share of the profits. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the latter and made a decree for a full account of the sums concerned.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
The bill was filed against the defendant as the guardian of the plaintiff for an account and settlement of the sum owing to him under the will of his father, Joseph Branch. The will provided for the sale of lands in Tennessee and all other property except for the slaves and the contents of 5 trunks which were reserved for the children. The will included instructions for the education of his children and for the hiring out of slaves. It had a provision that stated I desire that such of my negroes, as may be necessary to wait on and attend to my children, go with them to North Carolina. I greatly desire that my negroes shall be humanely treated, and should prefer, if it can be done, that they be hired out, privately, to humane persons, even at a less price, and, if possible, in families together. His brother John Branch, Laurence O'Brian and Henry R W Hill were appointed as guardians, trustees and executors. The question debated by the court was whether the costs of educating and maintaining the children was to be a joint charge upon the aggregate profits of the estate or whether such support should come out of their separate share of the profits. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the latter and made a decree for a full account of the sums concerned.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
Peter Hairston died in 1832 and bequeathed to his daughter Ruth several valuable plantations in Stoke county, and some 700 or 800 slaves. This Manuscript Case File just contains the summons to attend the Supreme Court hearing. Please see Manuscript Case File 7274 for the main sequence of manuscript documents. It includes a full list of over 700 slaves. Robert Hairston died in 1852 and his widow, Ruth, was appointed as administratrix. This bill was filed by some of the next of kin against the administratrix and other next of kin for an account and settlement of the estate. It was held that the property left to Ruth in 1832, and subsequently managed and used by her husband Robert, did not vest in his estate, but belonged to his surviving wife. The second question, in regard to the profits of the plantation and the slaves, from 1841 to 1852, was not argued fully by Mr Morehead and Mr Badger, as they concentrated most of their time on the first question as the most important matter. The Supreme Court decided to defer ruling on the second question until it came up by way of exceptions to the master's report. The Court was inclined to the opinion that Robert Hairston was entitled to those profits received by Samuel Hairston, acting as his agent. The slaves, livestock and other property given to Ruth did not form part of her husband's estate. Husband was clearly entitled to the profits from the land, including rents accrued. an account needed to be drawn up.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
Joel H Jenkins died in 1859 in Rowan county. He possessed a large estate and slaves in North Carolina and Arkansas. In total it was said to be worth in the region of [dollars] 250,000 consisting of town lots, lands in Rowan and Iredell counties, valuable land in Arkansas, various solvent notes totalling over [dollars] 100,000, numerous slaves, railroad bonds, stock in the North Carolina Railroad Company, and Florida bonds, all of which passed into the hands of the defendants, Roberts and Davis, as executors. After payment of debts there was about [dollars] 150,000 left. The Supreme Court made an order for an account and settlement of the estate of the testator. Proceedings had unfortunately been commenced in the Superior Court where the judge correctly ruled that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. On appeal, this decision was affirmed and the parties were instructed to make a case to the Judge of Probate. The relief for the three female plaintiffs could not be sought until a trust fund had been set up for them. The three other plaintiffs were not embraced by the trust according to the Supreme Court. There was also a misjoinder in respect of the defendant Davis as he had no concern with the management of the trust fund.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
Appeal from an interlocutory order dissolving an injunction which had been granted upon filing of the bill in the Court of Equity in Randolph county, North Carolina. William Brookshire died intestate in Clarke county, Alabama, in 1842, and the defendant, Abel H Dubose, was appointed as his administrator. The intestate left no wife or issue and the plaintiffs and defendants, other than the administrator, were the next of kin, and under the laws of Alabama they were entitled to a distribution of the estate. Late in 1844, Willie F Brookshire, the plaintiff, with powers of attorney from the other next of kin, went to Alabama to demand a settlement with the defendant. While there, he was induced by the fraudulent representations of the administrator to receive for himself and his principals much less than they were entitled, thus leaving a large balance due to each of them based on an equitable and fair distribution. He received for Newby and his wife, residing in Indiana, the sum of [dollars] 400 and brought this amount for them back with him to North Carolina. Newby and his wife sought to recover one of the slaves belonging to the estate, for the purpose of emancipating him. They had filed a suit in Alabama for this purpose in about 1842. They refused to take the [dollars] 400 as they felt this might prejudice their chances of receiving the slave. After they succeeded in their suit for the slave they also demanded the [dollars] 400 from Willie F Brookshire as part of their legitimate share. Dubose told Willie F Brookshire not to pay them the money and filed suit in Randolph county, North Carolina, and successfully claimed back the money. Willie asked for a proper account and settlement and an injunction against the judgment granting the [dollars] 400 back to Dubose. Dubose argued that nothing was due to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the bill could not be sustained and that the order dissolving the injunction was correct. The administrator, having been appointed in Alabama, could sue in North Carolina only in his individual capacity, but not in his representative capacity, to get back the money that Newby and his wife had refused. This did not give the plaintiff in this action the right to make the defendant provide a full account of his administration in the North Carolina courts. The North Carolina courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter. If the plaintiffs wanted to challenge the administrator in his official capacity then they had to do this in Alabama, the State where Dubose had been given authority to act as administrator.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
The will of Sarah Sloan directed that her son James Sloan was to take possession of the slave Hannah for the use of her daughter Fanny West, and then following her death, the value of the slave was to be split between Fanny's children. Up to his death in 1847 James Sloan had possession of Hannah and her offspring. They then passed into the hands of his children and legatees who kept some of the slaves and disposed of others. Fanny West and her husband and children had moved to Alabama. Her husband then travelled further west and it was proved that he had died. Fanny was much in need of money, but had no business sense and could not read or write. In 1829 James Sloan had sold Hannah and her two children to William Stinson who then gave the slaves back to James Sloan. The plaintiffs allege that this was a fraudulent sale. The defendants contend that the sale was made for the benefit of Fanny West. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for the reconveyance of Hannah's children, the appointment of another trustee, and an account and payment of the value of the hires of these slaves, and the proceeds from the sales of those slaves which had been sold without notice.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
The estate of James C Johnston in this controversy was one of the largest in the State and counsel on both sides were eminent and zealous. The questions were numerous, and some of them were intricate. Verdict establishing the will was affirmed. It was decided that the rejection of three testamentary letters as being not part of the will did not render the will unfinished and void. Allegations of partial insanity. Paper dictated by the testator two years after he executed the will explaining his reasoning was held to be evidence of the testator's soundness of mind. The genealogical table in the book was admitted as accurate by the Supreme Court. The will included a provision that my negroes may be taken care of. The estate included considerable lands in Chowan, Pasquotank, Halifax and Northampton counties, mills, houses, plantations, slaves, shares in bank stock, United States stock and loans, North Carolina state stock, Virginia state stock, bonds and other assets. James C Johnston was one of North Carolina's most prosperous planters. He inherited his extensive holdings from his influential father, Samuel Johnston, a native of Scotland who had emigrated to North Carolina with his family as a small child. James C Johnston owned hundreds of slaves.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
This is a supplementary manuscript file for this case. Unsuccessful petition to rehear a decretal order pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. This manuscript case file has the papers covering the repayment of [dollars] 2,013.81 by Lane and Durand in 1853, with receipt for this amount, following their loss of this case. The will of William S Morris had directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the Court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. For the main manuscript file relating to this case, see case 6180.2; for another supplementary file, see 5370.2.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
The estate of James C Johnston in this controversy was one of the largest in the State and counsel on both sides were eminent and zealous. The questions were numerous, and some of them were intricate. Verdict establishing the will was affirmed. It was decided that the rejection of three testamentary letters as being not part of the will did not render the will unfinished and void. Allegations of partial insanity. Paper dictated by the testator two years after he executed the will explaining his reasoning was held to be evidence of the testator's soundness of mind. The genealogical table in the book was admitted as accurate by the Supreme Court. The will included a provision that my negroes may be taken care of. The estate included considerable lands in Chowan, Pasquotank, Halifax and Northampton counties, mills, houses, plantations, slaves, shares in bank stock, United States stock and loans, North Carolina state stock, Virginia state stock, bonds and other assets. James C Johnston was one of North Carolina's most prosperous planters. He inherited his extensive holdings from his influential father, Samuel Johnston, a native of Scotland who had emigrated to North Carolina with his family as a small child. James C Johnston owned hundreds of slaves.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
This is the main manuscript file for this case. The Supreme Court appeal of 1852 was a petition to rehear a decretal order, made by Chief Justice Ruffin in December 1851 in the same court, pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. The will directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs, were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. There are also two supplementary manuscript files for this case: see 5370.2 and 5514.2.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
In an effort to apprehend a group of runaway slaves responsible for great outrages, several magistrates of Gates county met between terms of the county court and ordered that a reward of [dollars] 1,600 be offered for the capture of the four slaves, or [dollars] 400 for each one. The plaintiffs claimed that they, together with one Collins, had apprehended three of the slaves, but that they were unable to recover their reward because Collins had fraudulently dismissed a suit brought to recover it. The prayer of the suit was for [dollars] 1,200 for the three slaves; the defendants were the magistrates who had offered the reward. The Supreme Court ruled that though it was admitted by all sides that the magistrates had not enjoyed the power to commit the county to offering the reward as they had been sitting outside the regular terms of the court, it did not concur with the plaintiffs' assertion that the magistrates therefore bound themselves personally to pay the reward. The bill was dismissed, though the court advised the plaintiffs that if they had a well-founded claim against the county, it ought not to be doubted but that, on proper application, they will obtain full justice.
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: