Brown v. Allen
| Decision Date | 31 December 1859 |
| Citation | 40 Tenn. 429 |
| Parties | WILLIAM BROWN v. W. A. ALLEN. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM BEDFORD.
Verdict and judgment for the defendant, at the December term, 1858, Davidson, J., presiding. The plaintiff appealed.
W. H. Wisner, for the plaintiff; Henry Cooper, for the defendant.
Brown instituted this action of replevin against Allen to recover a negro man slave named Perry, then in the possession of the defendant. He failed in the action because of the superior title of the defendant, as found by the jury.
Brown's title was a bill of sale from Rutledge for this and other slaves, dated 21st December, 1857, under which he held possession until some time in January, 1858, when he was taken into possession by Allen.
The claim of Allen was by virtue of a levy of an execution in his hands, as constable, in favor of Mayfield against said Rutledge, for $193.43, and costs, issued 4th December, 1857, and levied on the same day. It is endorsed on said execution that it was returned on the first of January, 1858, and an order of sale issued. Another slave, named Jim, was included in the same levy. Perry was proved to be worth $1,100 and Jim about $600, but was afterwards sold for $450 under other executions. It is said there was another execution in the hands of Allen levied upon said slaves in favor of Conner for $250. The next day after the levy, the constable informed Rutledge of it, and the slaves were left with him by agreement. When Rutledge sold the slaves to Brown, he obtained his note for $250, which he paid over to Allen, to be applied to the Conner execution, in his hands.
The jury gave the defendant a verdict for $1,000, as the value of the slave Perry, besides hire and interest, for which execution was to issue in the event the slaves was not delivered. This was all released upon the record by the defendant, except $177.65, and the costs.
The errors insisted upon by the plaintiff for a reversal are supposed to be in the charge of the court.
1. He held that the title which was vested in Allen, the constable, by virtue of his levy, was not lost by leaving the slaves in the possession of the debtor for a reasonable time without any bond for delivery, but it would be otherwise if they remained there an unreasonable time. And as to this the jury were the judges. This is in conformity to our decisions. The title which passes into the officer, by virtue of the levy, does not depend upon the removal of it from the possession of the defendant in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial