About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Junius K. Horsburg, Devisee of James Henderson, Appellant, vs. Martin Baker and Hannah his wife, Francis Clark, Robert Boyce, and Peter Mason, for himself, and as Guardian to Susannah R. Hamlett U.S. 232 (1828)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0144 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. JUNIUS K. HORSBURG, DEViSEE OF JAMES HENDERSON, AIPPEL- LANT, VS. MARTIN BAKER AND HANNAH HIS WIFE, FRANCIS CLARK, ROBET BOYCE, AND PETER MASON, FOR HIMSELF, AND AS GUARDIAN TO SUSANNAH R. HAMLEF.TT. A Court of Chancery, is not the proper tribunal to enforce a forfeiture; the reeedy for the same being at law. {236} After an answer and discovery, the rule is, that a.suit brought, merely for discovery, cannot be revived. The object is obtained, and the plaintiff has no motive for reviving it. 1236} A bill had been filed originally for discovery, and afterwards became a bill forrelief. The relief prayed for, was afoiTeiture'; which might be enforced at law. Under such. circumstances, it was proper to dismiss the bill, so far as it sought for relief againstthe forfeiture; but the dismission should have been without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties, as an abso- lute dismission might be considered as a decree against the title -the plain. tiff claimed, and which, by the bill and the evidence obtained under it, he sought to establish. {2361 ON an appeal from the Circuit Court, for the district of Kentucky. The facts and the pleadings in the case, are fully stated in the opinion of the Court. The cause was argued by Mr. Wickliffe, on the part of the appellants; no counsel, appearing for the appellees. The fol- lowing points were stated in the argument, by Mr. Wickliffe.- 1. The loan made in 1784, and as further evidenced, by the deed of confirmation of 1787, was valid, as between the parties to it; -and as Baker and wife are proved, in 1813, to be in pos- session of the negroes, and of a copy, or the original deed of 1781 is admitted, they are estopped from asserting any title to said slaves, which they may have had prior to that deed. 2 The deed of 1787, having been duly recorded in the pro- per office, on the 4th of July 1787, was notice to all the world; and the subsequent rem6val of the slaves out of the state of Virginia, without the knowledge and consent of Hosburg, did not destroy the legal effect of that deed, or convert the loan into an absolute title, in Baker and wife. S. Baker and wife cannot rely upon the lapse of time, or the length of possession, to defeat the right of Horsburg, aid those claiming under them. 4. The Court, in this cause, had jurisdiction upon two grounds; the one, arising from the nature of the contract, and its subject matter; the other, from the peculiar circumtances of the case, the difficulty of proving and identifying the slave Charlotte and her increase, without the aid of a discovery on oath; and the repeated attempts by the defendants, and the just

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most