Osborne v. Taylor's Adm'r
Supreme Court of Virginia
^Previous to the 2nd day of February 1835, Thomas O. Ta37lor departed this life, having1 first made his will, which was duly admitted to probat in the County court of Powhatan. By the first clause of his will, which was wholly written by himself, he directs all his debts to be paid; though he expresses the belief that there are none.
Read the full summary
^Previous to the 2nd day of February 1835, Thomas O. Ta37lor departed this life, having1 first made his will, which was duly admitted to probat in the County court of Powhatan. By the first clause of his will, which was wholly written by himself, he directs all his debts to be paid; though he expresses the belief that there are none. By the second, third and fourth clauses, he directs certain of his slaves to be liberated, or at their option to remain in the state and choose masters. The sixth, seventh and eighth clauses of the will are as follows: Sixthly. The residue of my property, both…
1Opinion of the CourtSamuejds, J.
The appellants’ counsel in the argument here insisted, that the slaves were improperly made parties in this case (referring to the case of McCandlish v. Edloe, 3 Gratt. 330), and that a decree of emancipation can be rendered only in a suit brought in forma pauperis for the recovery of freedom ; and that, for these reasons, the Circuit court erred in deciding the question as to the condition of the slaves. In answer it may be said that Hancock having the alleged *slaves in his possession, and being unwilling to decide the conflicting claims between them and Taylor’s next of kin, might be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Greenlee's adm'r v. BaileySupreme Court of Virginia · 1838
- Austin v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1844
- Forward's adm'r v. ThamerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853
- Peter v. HargraveSupreme Court of Virginia · 1848