|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000nam a2200000Mi 4500 |
| 001 |
on1391998101 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20240909213021.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr ||||||||a|| |
| 008 |
230622s1845 ncu o 000 d eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a UKAMD
|b eng
|e rda
|c UKAMD
|d OCLCO
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1391998101
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh :
|b Christmas et al v Mitchell et al, June 1845 [printed].
|
| 264 |
|
0 |
|a Raleigh, North Carolina :
|b North Carolina Supreme Court,
|c 1845.
|
| 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 Buckner Davis died in 1820 and in his will gave his entire estate to three friends, also naming them as guardians of his children. In the document he also recommended that certain named slaves be given to his daughter, Betsy Christmas, and after her death to her children, the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' bill alleged that the executors of the will, Peter and Stephen Davis, therefore held the slaves in question in trust for Betsy and her children's benefit, and that in violation of this trust they conveyed them to one Thomas Christmas, who then sold them to the defendant Mitchell. The bill prayed for Mitchell to convey the slaves to the defendants (their mother, Betsy Christmas, being now dead) and to account for the value of one, Tom, whom he had sold on for [dollars] 800 and who had been conveyed out of the state by the purchaser. In his answer, Mitchell claimed full title to the slaves, stating that if Buckner Davis's executors had sold his slaves in violation of the trust that had been vested in them then they were personally liable and his title was unaffected. The Supreme Court found that Thomas Christmas had held the slaves under the same terms as Peter and Stephen Davis - namely, in trust for Betsy Christmas and her children - and therefore that Mitchell did not have title to them. Mitchell himself, who was proved to have had some sketchy knowledge of the terms of Buckner Davis's will, had been negligent in not making certain that Thomas Christmas had full title to the slaves before buying them from him. A verdict was therefore given for the plaintiffs.
|
| 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
|
| 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-christmas-et-al-v-mitchell-et-al-june-1845/17611184
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|