|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000nam a2200000Mi 4500 |
| 001 |
on1391992706 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20240808213014.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr ||||||||a|| |
| 008 |
230622s1871 gau o 000 d eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a UKAMD
|b eng
|e rda
|c UKAMD
|d OCLCO
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1391992706
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Georgia, Supreme Court, Atlanta :
|b Ellis, trustee v Rachels et al, January 1871.
|
| 264 |
|
0 |
|a Georgia :
|b Supreme Court,
|c 1871.
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 online resource.
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a text
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a computer
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a online resource
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 490 |
1 |
|
|a Slavery, abolition & social justice
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a In 1858 Nathan Truitt made his will, in which he left eleven slaves to Samuel D Ellis after the death of his widow. Ellis was also given 200 acres of land, livestock and provisions for the slaves' use to support themselves. The rest of the estate Truitt left to his widow and his daughter, Mrs Willis. Nathan Truitt died in 1859 and his will went to probate; in 1869 Ellis filed this bill against Rachels, Mrs Willis's new husband, and others alleging that in 1860 Rachels, after marrying Mrs Willis, had settled with Truitt's executor and taken the whole estate in charge, and now refused to deliver to Ellis the property that Truitt had entrusted to him. The defendants demurred to the bill on the basis that the clause in the will under which Ellis claimed amounted to an illegal emancipation and that in any case the slaves mentioned in the will had since been freed and that if they wanted to benefit from the will they could sue in their own name. This demurrer was sustained by the court and the bill dismissed, against which Ellis appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the will had not been void due to illegality, as the provisions in it for the slaves merely amounted to Truitt's choice of method by which his slaves would be provided for in their old age, which was both a moral and a legal duty. However, as the slaves were now free the legal duty to them of a master had ceased, and so as a consequence had the need to appoint a trustee. Judgment affirmed.
|
| 535 |
1 |
|
|a Georgia Archives
|
| 542 |
|
|
|f Material sourced from the Georgia Archives
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Blacksmiths
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Court records
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Livestock
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Plantations
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved persons
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved persons
|x Emancipation
|2 fast
|
| 651 |
|
7 |
|a Georgia
|z Troup County
|2 fast
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Adam Matthew Digital (Firm),
|e digitiser.
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Georgia Archives,
|e owner.
|
| 830 |
|
0 |
|a Slavery, abolition & social justice.
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://holycross.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=cas&url=https://www.slavery.amdigital.co.uk/documents/detail/georgia-supreme-court-atlanta-ellis-trustee-v-rachels-et-al-january-1871/17579025
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|