|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000nam a2200000Mi 4500 |
| 001 |
on1391998019 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20240909213021.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr ||||||||a|| |
| 008 |
230622s1849 ncu o 000 d eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a UKAMD
|b eng
|e rda
|c UKAMD
|d OCLCO
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1391998019
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh :
|b Hailes et al v Ingram, December 1849 [printed].
|
| 264 |
|
0 |
|a Raleigh, North Carolina :
|b North Carolina Supreme Court,
|c 1849.
|
| 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 Daniel Hailes named his wife Sarah as executrix and bequeathed her an estate for life with the remainderman being Alexander Hailes; if Alexander died during Sarah's lifetime then his children were to benefit. After Daniel's death Sarah sold a slave to one Hart for [dollars] 550, a sale in which Alexander joined. The bill of sale did not purport to be executed in Sarah's capacity as executrix, but merely as a tenant for life in the slave. Alexander Hailes died in the lifetime of Sarah, and his children brought a bill against Ingram (to whom Hart had sold the slave on) to compel him to give security for the delivery of the slave at the death of Sarah, which was found in their favour. Sarah died in 1844 and Ingram instituted a cross-bill, on the grounds that as executrix Sarah had sold Hart the absolute title in the slave. Alexander's children maintained that Sarah had sold as legatee and not as executrix. The Supreme Court ruled that, since the estate was only very lightly indebted, Sarah in her capacity as executrix had had no legitimate reason to sell an absolute title in the slave (as an executor might) in order to pay the debt. If the sale was to be valid she therefore sold as legatee, implying that as executrix she had passed on the title that the testator directed be vested in the legatee, which was that of a tenant for life. The sale was therefore of a contingent title and not an absolute one. Verdict for the plaintiffs in the original bill, and the cross-bill dismissed.
|
| 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 Slave trade
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Slavery
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Wills
|2 fast
|
| 651 |
|
7 |
|a North Carolina
|z Anson County
|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-raleigh-hailes-et-al-v-ingram-december-1849/17613776
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|