Wicks v. Chew
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Aí’peai. from the Court of Chancery. On the 11th of September 1816, Araminta Chew, and others, (the appel-lees,) by John Davis their next friend, filed a petition against the heirs and devisees of Richard Darnall, deceased, stating that the said Darnall, on the 10th of May 1805, executed and acknowledged a deed of manumission, by the petitioners were manumitted from slavery.
Read the full summary
Aí’peai. from the Court of Chancery. On the 11th of September 1816, Araminta Chew, and others, (the appel-lees,) by John Davis their next friend, filed a petition against the heirs and devisees of Richard Darnall, deceased, stating that the said Darnall, on the 10th of May 1805, executed and acknowledged a deed of manumission, by the petitioners were manumitted from slavery. That Darnall died soon after the execution of this deed, and that it has been omitted to be recorded within the time prescribed by law, without any fraudulent design or intention in any person whatever. Prayer, that such…
1Opinion of the CourtBuchanan, J.
This case comes up. on an appeal from a decree of the chancellor, ordering a paper executed by Richard Darnall, purporting to be a deed of manumission to the petitioners, to be recorded. By the act of 1796, ch. 67, s. 29, deeds of manumission are required to be recorded “within six months after the date,” without which thejr are of no validity in law. The instrument of writing which is sought to be recorded, bears date the 10th of May, in the year 1805, and was recorded on the 19th of May 1814, something more than nine years affer the date, and can have no effect or operation without the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dyson v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Pfeaff v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- Peters v. Van LearCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- State ex rel. Clements v. Van LearCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853