McNeill v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Hon. Tiieodortc F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge. There is no proof in the case that McNeill, previous to his purchase, ever had any notice, actual or constructive, that Samuel Burke had conveyed the negroes to Glover as trustee for the use of Virgil Burke’s wife and children. The fourth instruction was, therefore, purely abstract, and ought not to have been given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Hon. Tiieodortc F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge. There is no proof in the case that McNeill, previous to his purchase, ever had any notice, actual or constructive, that Samuel Burke had conveyed the negroes to Glover as trustee for the use of Virgil Burke’s wife and children. The fourth instruction was, therefore, purely abstract, and ought not to have been given. State Bank vs. Williams et al., 1st Eng. 150; Carlock vs. Spencer and wife, 2d Eng. 12; Zachary vs. Pace, 4th Eng. 212; Sadler et al. vs Sadler, 16th Eng. 628; Owens use et al. vs. Chandler, 16 Eng. 652.…
1Opinion of the Court
Hon. Harris Flanagin, Special Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is replevin in the detinet for negroes, the stock of which, as claimed by'appellees (the plaintiffs below), were bought by Samuel Burke with his means, and by him conveyed to one Glover in trust, for the use of one Lucy Ann Burke, the wife of Virgil J. Burke, (the son of the grantor), for life, or until the youngest child of Lucy Ann Burke, by Virgil J. Burke, should arrive at twenty-one years of age, when the remainder should vest in the children of Lucy Ann Burke by Virgil J. That thu. purchase was made in the year…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Butler v. StevensSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1847
- Spofford v. WestonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. AsmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Dixon v. AhernNevada Supreme Court · 1887