North Carolina, Supreme Court, Morganton : Blanton v Morrow, August 1850.

In his will, Stith Mayes bequeathed all his personal property to his wife for life, with his ten children as remaindermen after her death. Among the property was fourteen slaves. In 1836, during the life of the widow, the testator's son James F Mayes sold all his interest in the property to the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Corporate Author: Adam Matthew Digital (Firm) (digitiser.)
Format: Electronic eBook
Language:English
Series:Slavery, abolition & social justice.
Subjects:
Online Access:Click for online access

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a2200000Mi 4500
001 on1391997806
003 OCoLC
005 20241006213017.0
006 m o d
007 cr ||||||||a||
008 230622s1850 ncu o 000 d eng d
040 |a UKAMD  |b eng  |e rda  |c UKAMD  |d OCLCO 
035 |a (OCoLC)1391997806 
049 |a HCDD 
245 0 0 |a North Carolina, Supreme Court, Morganton :  |b Blanton v Morrow, August 1850. 
264 0 |a Raleigh, North Carolina :  |b North Carolina Supreme Court,  |c 1850. 
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 his will, Stith Mayes bequeathed all his personal property to his wife for life, with his ten children as remaindermen after her death. Among the property was fourteen slaves. In 1836, during the life of the widow, the testator's son James F Mayes sold all his interest in the property to the defendant Morrow. In 1844 one Hiatt McBurney recovered a judgment against Morrow and subsequently the sheriff of Cleveland county offered Morrow's interest in the slaves for sale under it, which was bought for [dollars] 250 by the plaintiff Blanton. None of the slaves were present at the sale, having been hired out by Mrs Mayes to various people in North and South Carolina. After Mrs Mayes's death in 1848 a sale and partition was agreed between Morrow, Blanton and the Mayes children, and this suit was brought to determine the respective rights of Morrow and Blanton. The court determined that Blanton's purchase was void and that title continued in Morrow, and Blanton appealed to the Supreme Court. This upheld the verdict, ruling that personal property had to be present at a sheriff's sale for title in it to pass. 
535 1 |a North Carolina State Archives 
542 |f Material sourced from the North Carolina State Archives 
650 7 |a Court records  |2 fast 
650 7 |a Debt  |2 fast 
650 7 |a Sheriffs  |2 fast 
650 7 |a Slave trade  |2 fast 
650 7 |a Slavery  |2 fast 
650 7 |a Wills  |2 fast 
651 7 |a North Carolina  |2 fast 
710 2 |a Adam Matthew Digital (Firm),  |e digitiser. 
710 1 |a North Carolina.  |b Division of Archives and History,  |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/north-carolina-supreme-court-morganton-blanton-v-morrow-august-1850/2275052  |y Click for online access 
903 |a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE 
994 |a 92  |b HCD