Cully v. Jones

Citation31 N.C. 168,9 Ired. 168
Decision Date31 December 1848
PartiesAUGUSTINE CULLY v. LOVICK JONES et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Where on petition of an executor, in pursuance of the directions of his testatrix, an order was passed in 1805 by the County Court, “that the said executor have leave to emancipate his said slave, he first giving bond and security as required by law,” and the bond was not given till 1816, and ever since that order, until the year 1846, the said slave and her children had been permitted to enjoy all the rights of free persons of color; Held, that neither the executor, whose duty it was to give the bond, nor any person claiming under or through him can take advantage of that omission, much less a mere wrong-doer, after the lapse of so many years.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Craven County, at the Fall Term, 1848, his Honor Judge SETTLE presiding.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, for false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was a slave, upon which issue was joined. By the will of Jane Thompson, to whom Phebe, the mother of the plaintiff, belonged, Reuben Jones, her executor, “was directed to obtain the freedom of Phebe, if practicable, on account of her meritorious services.” In pursuance thereof, Jones filed a petition in the County Court of Carteret. Whereupon it was ordered by the Court, at November term, 1846, “that the said Jones have license to liberate the slave Phebe, he first giving bond and security as required by law.” From and after that date Phebe was permitted by said Jones to act as a free person, and she and her children have ever since, up to a short time before this action was brought in 1846, been treated as free persons. Jones neglected to give the bond as required until until the year 1816, when at the August term of said Court, it was ordered “that the said Jones file his bond for the emancipation of the negro woman Phebe, pursuant to the grant of this Court at November term 1806, with James T. Jones as security;” which was accordingly done.

The plaintiff, Augustine, was a child of Phebe, born in the year 1808, and always acted and was treated as a free person, until just before the commencement of this action, when she was seized by the defendant and claimed as a slave. Judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendants.

J. H. Bryan and J. W. Bryan, for the plaintiff .

No counsel for the defendant.

PEARSON J.

It might be urged, with much force, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Durham v. Durham
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1858
    ...by implication. (Legrand v. Donnell, 2 Pet. 670; see 2 Pet. 191; Burke v. Negro Joe, 6 Gill & Jo. 136; Anderson v. Garnett, 9 Gill, 135; 9 Ired. 168; Nancy v. Snell, 6 Dana, 155; Naylor v. Hays, 7 B. Mon. 478; Henderson v. Jason, 9 Gill, 483.) An act of emancipation may be presumed although......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT