Haden v. Tucker
Supreme Court of Alabama
Aureal from the Circuit Court of Marengo, Tried before the Hon. Poetes King. This action was brought by Joseph B. Haden and Emma D., his wife, against James W. Tucker, to recover damages for the conversion of a slave named Ellen, The defendant pleaded not guilty, “in short by consent, with leave to give any special matter in evidence”; and issue was joined on that plea.
Read the full summary
Aureal from the Circuit Court of Marengo, Tried before the Hon. Poetes King. This action was brought by Joseph B. Haden and Emma D., his wife, against James W. Tucker, to recover damages for the conversion of a slave named Ellen, The defendant pleaded not guilty, “in short by consent, with leave to give any special matter in evidence”; and issue was joined on that plea. The material facts of the case, as proved on the trial, are these: The slave in controversy was purchased. by Mrs, Perkins, the mother of Mrs, Haden, in 183Í), for her said daughter, who was then au infant; and the greater…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
Only a single question has been argued, and we propose to confine our remarks to that question. The first charge given to the jury, and excepted to, raises the question, can the plaintiffs maintain the action of trover on the facts of this case, as supposed in that charge ? There is nothing in this record from which we can infer that the sale of the slave Ellen was completed, and the bill of sale afterwards executed ; and hence, we need not consider how we would decide such supposed case. On the contrary, the facts <jf the case tend to show that the parties intended that whatever contract…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sanford v. HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Mobile Marine Dock & Mutual Ins. v. McMillan & SonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Thomason v. DillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Sledge's Adm'rs v. CloptonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Jones v. Trawick's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bridges v. McClendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876