Milly v. Smith

Decision Date31 May 1828
Citation2 Mo. 36
PartiesMILLY (A WOMAN OF COLOR) v. SMITH.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

TOMPKINS, J.

This was an action of trespass, &c., under the statute brought by Milly the appellant, against Smith the appellee, to establish a right to freedom. The appellee pleaded the general issue. Judgment was entered for the appellee, from which the appellant appeals to this court. The facts proved at this trial are, that David Shipman, a resident of Kentucky, owned and was in possession of the appellant as a slave; that on the 17th October, 1826, while residing in Kentucky, he executed a deed to said Smith of which a copy is here given, viz: “This indenture made this 17th day of October, 1826, between David Shipman of the one part, and Stephen Smith of the other part, witnesseth: that the said David Shipman, for and in consideration of the sum of one doller to him in hand paid, the receipt of which he doth hereby acknowledge, hath granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents doth convey unto the said Stephen Smith, and his heirs forever, a tract of land in Shelby county, on Guess' Creek, containing 26 acres, upon which said Shipman's grist and saw mill now stands; also, a negro man named Moses, about 30 years of age; one woman named Milly, about 25 or 6 years old; one child called David, about 18 months old; Harry about 16 years; Bill about 12 or 13 years old; Sarah about 27 years old; Eliza about 15 years old; six head of horses; one yoke of oxen and cart; ten head of cattle; 30 head of sheep; 30 head of hogs; beds and furniture; household and kitchen furniture of every description; farming utensils, and one clock: To have and to hold the said land, slaves and chattels, with their future increase, to him the said Stephen Smith, and his heirs, forever--and the said David Shipman covenants that he will warrant the title thereof to the said Smith, and his heirs, against the claim of all persons whatsoever, rendered, however, subject to the following conditions, that is say: that whereas the above named David Shipman is indebted to the Commonwealth's Bank in about the sum of eight hundred dollars, for which the said Stephen Smith is bound as security, and the said Shipman is also indebted to the heirs of William Cooper, in about the sum of six hundred dollars, for which said Stephen is bound as security in a replevin bond, also indebted to Elijah Warner in about the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, an execution in the name of Helm for about one hundred and forty dollars, for which sums said Stephen is also bound as security; and is also indebted to said Stephen in his own right in about the sum of $207 due by note. Now the lands, chattels and slaves aforesaid, with their future increase, are hereby declared to be given in mortgage to secure, save, indemnify and pay the said Stephen Smith, as security, and in his own right in the several sums of money hereinbefore enumerated and mentioned; and it is hereby expressly understood and agreed between the parties, that the said David Shipman may, and is hereby permitted to retain and keep possession of the said land, slaves and other chattels with their future increase, and to have the use thereof, subject, however, to the lien hereby created; and should said Shipman, or said Smith, at any time hereafter be able to effect a sale of the land, slaves, &c., or any part at their fair value, and apply the proceeds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Williams v. Crow
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1884
    ...in the petition authorizing its introduction. The statutes of a sister state are facts and must be proved like any other fact. Milly v. Smith, 2 Mo. 36: Babcock v. Babcock, 46 Mo. 243; Morris v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 47 Mo. 521; 25 Mo. 465. (6) The petition must contain all the facts necessary......
  • Flato v. Mulhall
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1880
    ...v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84; Franklin v. Twogood, 25 Ia. 520; Bliss Plead., §§ 180, 183; Morrissey v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 47 Mo. 525; Milly v. Smith, 2 Mo. 36. 4. There is no presumption that the common law prevails in Texas. Throop v. Hatch, 3 Abb. Pr. 23; Chouteau v. Pierre, 9 Mo. 3; Ott v. Soulard......
  • Carson v. Hunter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1870
    ...law of Missouri, the consideration for the note is good, and this court will presume the laws of Arkansas to be the same as ours. (Milly v. Smith, 2 Mo. 36; Charlotte v. Chouteau, 25 Mo. 465.) BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff brought his action upon a promisso......
  • Stokes v. O'Fallon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 1828

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