Shields v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Virginia
Richard Byrd late of York, by bill of sale dated the 22d March 1805, expressed to be in consideration of 377 dollars paid him by Francis Bright, conveyed to Bright two slaves, named Sam and Tom, The fact was, however, that Byrd was indebted to Bright in the sum of 377 dollars, and that the bill of sale, though absolute on its face, was intended and delivered as a security for the debt) and, accordingly, Byrd continued in uninterrupted possession of the slaves.
Read the full summary
Richard Byrd late of York, by bill of sale dated the 22d March 1805, expressed to be in consideration of 377 dollars paid him by Francis Bright, conveyed to Bright two slaves, named Sam and Tom, The fact was, however, that Byrd was indebted to Bright in the sum of 377 dollars, and that the bill of sale, though absolute on its face, was intended and delivered as a security for the debt) and, accordingly, Byrd continued in uninterrupted possession of the slaves. The bill of sale was never recorded. In September 1805, John W. Waller, the brother of Byrd’s wife, paid Bright the debt of 377…
1Opinion of the CourtCake, J.
When the amended bill was filed in this case, and Waller’s heirs were thereby made parties, in order to charge the lands in their hands, they were not bound by any previous order in the cause, but were at full liberty to contest every thing, which might bear upon Waller’s liability for the hire of the slaves in question, and the amount of that liability. They were at liberty, then, to shew, if they could, that the bill of sale of Bright, and the purchase from him by Waller, were fair transactions; for, if fair, Waller was not at all liable for hires. This liberty, however, has not availed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Claytor v. AnthonySupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
- Baird v. BlandSupreme Court of Virginia · 1817