Black v. Youmans
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lafayette 'Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; If section 3 of the act approved February 6, 1867, long .since dropped from our statutes iby the digesters, can be said not to have become inoperative by reason of non-usage (Endlich, Int. Statutes, § 495), the evidence does not warrant a decree for .appellee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette 'Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; If section 3 of the act approved February 6, 1867, long .since dropped from our statutes iby the digesters, can be said not to have become inoperative by reason of non-usage (Endlich, Int. Statutes, § 495), the evidence does not warrant a decree for .appellee. The intention of the act manifestly was that before the offspring of slaves should be deemed in all respects legitimate, the evidence must be clear iand certain that such slaves did live together .as husband and wife, and that they did not cohabit with others. In this…
1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.
This is a controversy ¡about a forty-acre tract of land in Lafayette County, Arkansas.
Tom Bridges, a negro, acquired it from the government by patent as a homestead, and ¡died in possession in 1912, leaving him surviving his widow, Ellen Bridges, and sister, Dolly Black, who claimed to be his only heir. They conveyed the land on July 25,1911, to ft. L. Montgomery, who afterward conveyed it to Burton, one of ¡appellants.
Appellee purchased the land from George Williams, a ¡grandson, ¡of Tom, .alleged to be the only heir ¡of Viney Williams, the only child ¡of Tom Bridges. And in this .suit to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gregley v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Scoggins v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Akins v. HeidenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Meekins v. MeekinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925