Baldridge v. Walton

• Decision Date: 31 May 1825
• Citation: 1 Mo. 520
• Parties: BALDRIDGE, AND BALDRIDGE'S ADMINISTRATORS, v. WALTON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 Mo. 520

BALDRIDGE, AND BALDRIDGE'S ADMINISTRATORS,

v.WALTON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1825.

ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY.

TOMPKINS, J.

This is an action of detinue, commenced in the Circu Court of St. Charles county, by Walton, against James and Daniel Baldridge, for certain slaves. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and obtained a verdict in that court. A new trial was granted, and the cause transferred to the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, where the plaintiff obtained a verdict. A new trial was again granted, and the plaintiff had judgment for one of the slaves. To reverse this judgment, the defendants, James and Daniel Baldridge, come into this court, and assign for error, First. That the said Circuit Court received in evidence, and permitted to be read to the jury, a paper, purporting to be a deed of trust from Robert Baldridge to Joseph Evans, to secure the payment of a sum of money to William Adams, and two assignments thereof, without any proof of the execution of the said instrument. Second. That the court refused, on the prayer of the defendants, to instruct the jury that they must find for the defendants, because Joseph Evans, the trustee, had not, in selling the slaves, pursued the power given him in the deed of trust. Third. That the court refused to instruct the jury to disregard all parol evidence of the sale of the slaves made by the trustee, because it appeared that the said Walton, at the time he made a demand of the slaves in question, had exhibited a bill of sale as the foundation of his claim, which was not produced at the trial. Fourth. That the court refused to sum up the evidence, and pronounce the law thereon. Fifth. That the court refused to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, for reasons appearing on the record.

From the bill of exceptions it appears that Robert Baldridge, the intestate, by deed, dated 3d Feb. 1817, conveyed to Joseph Evans, for the purpose of securing the payment of $500 to William Adams, certain negro slaves in that deed mentioned. By this deed it was provided that if the said sum should be paid to Adams, the deed should be void; but should the money not be paid when due, then Evans, the trustee, was authorized to sell the property at the house of Nathaniel Simonds in St. Charles, first giving one month's notice of the day of sale in some newspaper nearest the county of St. Charles, or to Robert Baldridge, in writing, or leaving it at his place of residence. It appeared, in evidence, that this deed had, on the two former trials, been read in evidence, by consent of the defendant's counsel, without proof of its execution. It also, by the endorsements thereon, appeared that the deed had been assigned by Adams to Robbins, and by Robbins to John Baldridge, and that the trustee had advertised the said slaves for sale on the 19th October, 1823, at the place required, and that the sale was postpozed till the 31st day of the said month. It was also proved that the defendants on the 19th October (the trustee being absent), consulted in conversation with John Baldridge to defer the sale till the 31st October. It was then proved that Evans, the trustee, on the 31st October aforesaid, sold the negroes at the place before mentioned, notice being given in the same newspaper of the time and place. Walton, the plaintiff in the Circuit Court, did not bid for the negroes. It appears that John Baldridge purchased them as agent for him, and Walton paid the price of the negroes to John Baldridge. Further, to support his claim, the plaintiff offered to read to the jury a bill of sale from Evans to him for said negroes, dated 31st October, 1823, in which it is recited that by virtue of a deed dated 1st May, of trust from Robert Baldridge to him, Evans, for the purpose of securing to William Adams the sum of $500, due to him from Robert Baldridge, he had sold said negroes to said Walton. The bill of sale was, on motion of the defendants, excluded from the jury, because it appeared to be made by virtue of some other deed of trust than that before mentioned, and read to the...