Rumph v. Abercrombie
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Chancery Court of Macon.' Bill filed by defendant in error, alledges, that complainant’s intestate, was the owner thereof, and in possession of five slaves, a negro woman and her four children.
Read the full summary
Error to the Chancery Court of Macon.' Bill filed by defendant in error, alledges, that complainant’s intestate, was the owner thereof, and in possession of five slaves, a negro woman and her four children. That his intestate, before, and up to the time of her death, lived on the premises of defendant, who was a shrewd, subtle, crafty man — and the deceased, old, weak minded, imbecile, and infirm, and long before, and up to the time of her death, wholly incapable of protecting her interest, or of attending to her business. That shortly before her death, the defendant, under the guise of…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The objection to the jurisdiction of chan-, eery, upon the ground that there is no sufficient allegation in the bill, to authorize a recovery of these negroes, as “ family slaves,” need not be considered, as it is perfectly clear, the court of chancery has jurisdiction to set aside a deed fraudulently made, or obtained, of either land, or personal property —and it is no answer to this, that a court of law has concurrent jurisdiction in cases of fraud. [1 Story’s Eq. 68, § 60,' and cases there cited.]
We are then to consider, whether the conveyance of the slaves in this case, was obtained by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Waddell v. LanierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Thompson v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Clark v. RobinsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1870
- Coll y Cuchi v. ArzuagaDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1916