|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000nam a2200000 i 4500 |
| 001 |
on1391998051 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20241006213017.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr ||||||||a|| |
| 008 |
230622s1837 ncu o 000 d eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a UKAMD
|b eng
|e rda
|c UKAMD
|d OCLCO
|d OCLCQ
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1391998051
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh :
|b M'Connell et al v Peobles et al, December 1837 [printed].
|
| 264 |
|
0 |
|a Raleigh, North Carolina :
|b North Carolina Supreme Court,
|c 1837.
|
| 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 Lewis Peobles died in 1834, having made his will and appointed the defendant Allen his executor. In the will Peobles directed his slaves to be divided into equal lots and then drawn for by his six children and the heirs of a seventh, who had died. The plaintiffs in the present suit were the heirs of the dead daughter, Patsey M'Connell, and the defendants were the other legatees. The bill contended that several of Peobles's legatees had received slaves from Peobles by parol gifts during his lifetime, and that some of these had been sold; and it prayed for an account to be made of these gifts and sales so that the division of Peobles's slaves into lots might be accomplished equally. The defendants insisted that the provisions of the will applied only to the slaves in Peobles's own possession at the time of his death. The defendant Thomas Smith and his wife insisted also that a slave called Hannah, who had been bought for them by Peobles and who had never been in his possession, should also not be included in the division. The Supreme Court ruled that, since parol gifts of slaves to children had been established to be void, Peobles's gifts to his children were merely bailments and that therefore the slaves in the children's possession at the time of his death (and any children they might have had) should be included in the division into lots. The proceeds of the slaves that had been sold by the time of Peobles's death, however, were not to be included, and neither was Hannah or her children.
|
| 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 Families
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Slave trade
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Slavery
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Wills
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved women
|2 fast
|
| 651 |
|
7 |
|a North Carolina
|z Guilford 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-mconnell-et-al-v-peobles-et-al-december-1837/17609351
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|