Martin v. Henley

• Decision Date: 31 March 1850
• Citation: 13 Mo. 312
• Parties: LEWIS D. MARTIN & WIFE v. SAMUEL HENLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

13 Mo. 312

LEWIS D. MARTIN & WIFE

v.SAMUEL HENLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1850.

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

This was an action of detinue brought by the plaintiffs to recover a negro boy. To this the defendant filed two pleas. 1st. Non-detinue. 2nd. That the negro boy was not the property of the plaintiffs.

On the trial of this cause, Mrs. Williams testified that Elizabeth Martin, one of the plaintiffs, was her grandchild, and that the negro boy in question was the child of a negro girl named Eliza, a slave, which she had given to said Ann Elizabeth, when she, Ann Elizabeth, was a little girl, in Virginia; that Eliza was deponent's own slave at the time she gave her to Ann Elizabeth; that she requested her son, Walter Williams, the father of Ann Elizabeth, to take care of Eliza until Ann should arrive at an age to require her services; that her son Walter Williams removed from Virginia to Missouri in 1829; and the witness also, removed to Missouri in 1830, and made Walter Williams' house her home; that when Walter Williams left Virginia, she told him that he might bring Eliza, the mother of the boy in question, with him, to nurse one of his children, but upon condition that Ann Elizabeth was to take her as soon as she was old enough to need her services, and with the understanding that Walter Williams should, at the proper time, deliver said negro boy to said Ann Elizabeth. Witness requested Walter Williams to have a deed drawn from her, conveying said negro girl, Eliza, to said Ann Elizabeth, which he promised to do; and only a few days before his death, he promised the next time he should go to town he would have the deed prepared, but he died, and it was neglected. Mrs. Williams further testified that Walter Williams never claimed said negro girl as his property, and that she told his administrator not to inventory said girl Eliza as the property of said Walter Williams. The witness further said that she raised said Ann Elizabeth from the time she was seven months old. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. The defendant offered no testimony on his part.

The court then, at the instance of defendant's counsel, gave the following instructions: 1. The statement of the plaintiffs' witness, that he had hired out the slave, sued for from defendant, as administrator of Walter Williams, is evidence that the defendant had possession of said slave as administrator of said Williams. 2. Though the jury should believe from the evidence, that Mrs. Williams prohibited the administrator of Walter Williams from taking possession of, or inventorizing said slave, such prohibition dees not have any effect to dispense with a demand on the part of said Elizabeth Martin or her husband. Which were excepted to by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs then asked the court to instruct the jury: 1. That if the jury believe from the evidence that Walter Williams, the defendant intestate, never claimed the negro girl, Eliza, the mother of Dick, but admitted the same to belong to Elizabeth, now wife of Lewis D. Martin, and promised to deliver said slave to her, whenever required, they will find for the plaintiffs. 2. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, Samuel Henley, had a demand made on him for the negro boy, Dick, by the plaintiffs before the commencement of this suit, and at the time he, the defendant, induced the plaintiffs to believe he had the negro boy Dick in his possession, and thereby induced the plaintiffs to bring this suit for the same, he is liable therefor, although it shall appear he did not have the actual possession of said slave. 3. That the defendant could only acquire such title in the slave, as the intestate Walter Williams had, at the time of his death. 4. That the possession anterior to the suit in the defendant, is a sufficient possession for the action of detinue to be maintained upon, unless said possession was taken from defendant by legal steps. 5. That if the jury find from the evidence that Henley took possession of the slave in question, and hired him out previous to the commencement of this suit, and that he is still so hired, that the possession is yet in legal contemplation, in defendant. 6. That if they find from the evidence, that Eliza, the mother of the slave, was given by the grandmother to Ann Elizabeth Williams, now wife of Lewis D. Martin, and one of the plaintiffs in this suit, and that her issue was the slave in question, that said issue is as much the property of said Ann Elizabeth as was the mother of the said slave in question. 7. If the jury believe from the evidence that the grandmother of Ann Elizabeth Williams, gave the mother of the slave in question to the said Ann Elizabeth in Virginia, and permitted her son Walter Williams to take the mother to Missouri, for a nurse with the express understanding that she was the property of the said Ann Elizabeth, and without limiting the time that the said Walter was to keep possession, then the said mother and her issue were the property of the said Ann Elizabeth, and she had a right to the possession as soon as Walter Williams deceased. 8. If the jury find from the evidence that the mother of the slave in question was given to Ann Elizabeth Williams, the wife of Lewis D. Martin, and one of the plaintiffs in this suit, and that the possession of Walter Williams, deceased, was a mere loan of said mother until said donee was of sufficient age to need said slave, and without any specific time agreed upon for the keeping of the said mother of the slave in question, that the plaintiffs had a right to the possession at the time they demanded it, and at any time after the death of said Walter Williams. The instructions asked for by the plaintiff were all refused, to which the plaintiffs excepted.

The cause being submitted to the jury, they found for the plaintiffs; whereupon the defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted, to which the plaintiffs excepted, and filed their bill of exceptions, and stated that they would abide the decision of the Supreme Court on the point made, but would not take a voluntary non-suit. At a subsequent term of the court, this case was called for trial, when the counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs intended to...