| Summary: | The petitioners had obtained an injunction to prevent the sale of a considerable number of slaves seized by the defendants. The defendants argued that the slaves belonged to Alfred G. Hall. They had won a judgement to seize his property to cover the debts he owed them. The case concerning a dispute over the correct title to the slaves and the terms of the will of Dixon Hall, Senior, which disposed of property including slaves. The plaintiffs argued that valid title was in Elizabeth Hall and her children. They argued that the slaves in question were listed on the deeds by which the testator acquired them. The defendants contended that the slaves were never in the possession of the testator, but continued in the possession of Dixon Hall, junior, instead. They argued that he sold them to A. G. Hall, the defendants's debtor in March 1848. He brought them to Louisiana and hired them out in the parish of Morehouse. The defendants based their seizure of the slaves upon this testimony. The plaintiffs petitioned to stop the sale of the slaves and get possession back. They offered the evidence of David Jumper which showed that Dixon Hall, senior, had paid Dixon Hall, junior, [dollars] 21,000 for a sale made in good faith for land, livestock, slaves, furniture, utensils and other property. The District Court perpetuated the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of a family member to prove title and the defendants objected to the testimony of Amy Hall, the grandmother of Dixon Hall, junior. The Supreme Court sustained this objection. The receipt for the sale of [dollars] 21,000 in property was for [dollars] 20,000. It was adjudged that this was a simulated sale. The Supreme Court ordered the judgement in this case to be reversed, the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs to be dissolved, and the slaves seized were to be subjected to the defendants's execution. The plaintiffs as principals , and Alexander D. Peck, Bowles Billingsby and Thomas N. Barnham, as securities upon the injunction bond, were ordered to pay the defendants [dollars] 100 in damages. The plaintiffs had to pay costs in both courts.
|
|---|