Bateman v. Bateman.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Washington.~ This was an action of detinue for a negro slave, and upon the trial the Plaintiff proved, that some time in the year 1804, the Defendant, in conversation, said that he |ia(] settled his dispute with the Plaintiff, and that he had ^ †()6 p]ajntiff |iave the negro in question in satisfaction 0f a of one hundred dollars, which he owed to him: that as the negro was small, he had agreed to keep her until she was able to do service, or was called for by the…
Read the full summary
From Washington.~ This was an action of detinue for a negro slave, and upon the trial the Plaintiff proved, that some time in the year 1804, the Defendant, in conversation, said that he |ia(] settled his dispute with the Plaintiff, and that he had ^ †()6 p]ajntiff |iave the negro in question in satisfaction 0f a of one hundred dollars, which he owed to him: that as the negro was small, he had agreed to keep her until she was able to do service, or was called for by the Plaintiff. The Defendant had remained in possession of the negro ever since. There was no evidence of a delivery of the negro…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief-Justice,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The question in this case depends upon the true construction of the act of 1792, ch. 6, to ascertain which, it is necessary to consider the act in connexion with that of 1784, ch. 10, the seventh section of which it is its professed object to amend and explain. The preamble to that section declares, that many persons have been injured by secret deeds of gift to children and others, and for want of formal bills of sale. The enacting clause provides, that all sales of slaves shall be in Writing, and that they, as well as deeds of gift,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cotten v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816