Halifax County NcArchives Court.....David Pender, Sen., Bartholomew Barrow V. 1819
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 3, 2009, 4:23 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1819

Bartholomew Barrow v. David Pender, Sen.

From Halifax

November Term 1819

Upon a marriage of his daughter in 1805, her father put into her possession a 
slave. In 1807, he purchased a tract of land for his son in law and family to 
reside on (the son in law having become nearly insolvent), and sold the slave 
to pay for the land. The son in law died, and in 1809 the father sold the 
land. His daughter complained: he answered that he would build her a house, 
and let her have another slave. He put into her possession another slave, and 
she married, and her husband sold the slave. The purchaser is not entitled to 
the slave as against the father; for

The daughter must be considered either as a donee or a purchaser. If she 
claimed under a gift, it not being in writing, is void by the act of 1806. She 
could not claim as a purchaser, because the first slave sold by her father, 
and by her consent, to pay for the land, was the slave of her first husband. 
She paid nothing to her father for the second slave.

She could nor claim upon the ground of a compromise of a doubtful right, for 
there was no subsisting right in her or her father. In the cases of compromise 
of doubtful rights, there is a distinct and intelligible right in one of the 
parties, and the effect of the compromise is to end a dispute which must, 
otherwise terminate in litigation.

This was an action of detinue for negro slaves; and the leading facts of the 
case were as follows: The Defendant had a daughter, who married one 
Williamson. He was a man of bad character, and insolvent: and having gone to 
Tarborough to follow his trade, his wife went to live with him at that place 
in 1805, taking with her a negro slave be longing to her father. Williamson 
remained in possession of the negro till some time in 1807, when he and his 
wife left Tarborough, and went to reside near the Defendant; when the 
Defendant purchased a tract of land to settle them on, and to pay for this 
land, he sold the negro. Williamson died, and his widow continued to reside on 
the land till 1809, when the Defendant sold it. At the time of the sale, Mrs. 
Williamson reproached the Defendant, her father, with injustice towards her: 
said to him that he had taken away the negro that he let her have, and sold it 
for the land, and the deed was taken in his name to prevent its being liable 
for Williamson's debts. To these reproaches, the Defendant replied, that a 
negro would suit her better than the land: that she could not cultivate the 
land herself, and she had no one to labor for her; that he would give or let 
her have the slave (naming her), who was the mother of those in question, and 
to remove her to his own house, and have a house built for her. Soon 
afterwards Mrs. Williamson was removed to a house in the Defendant's yard, and 
had the possession and use of the slave. She then married Waller, and on the 
morning following the marriage, the Defendant called up the slave, and in 
presence of witnesses declared that Waller might take her home upon loan, 
subject to the demand of himself or his representatives. At this time no claim 
was set up by Waller or his wife, both being present. Waller continued in 
possession of the slave for several years, and becoming indebted to divers 
people, he was sued, judgments had against him, and executions issued, which 
were levied on the slave and her children, and at the sale the Plaintiff 
became the purchaser. Some time before the sale, Waller executed a bill of 
sale to the Plaintiff for the slaves, in consideration of money which the 
Plaintiff either had paid or was bound to pay for him. The Defendant gave 
notice to the Plaintiff before his purchase under the executions, that Waller 
held the slaves only upon loan. Waller lived with the Plaintiff, and sometimes 
one and sometimes the other had possession of the slaves for more than three, 
years.

For the Plaintiff it was insisted, that Mrs. Williamson was to be regarded as 
a purchaser of the slave, (the mother of those in question.) That she had a 
claim to the land in part purchased with the negro slave first put into her 
possession after her marriage with Williamson; that at that time (previous to 
the act of 1806) the law regarded this putting of the slave into her 
possession as a gift; that she asserted her claim to the land when the 
Defendant was about to sell it, and had agreed to abandon her claim in 
consideration of the promise of the Defendant to let her have the slave, the 
mother of those in question; that the Defendant let her have the slave in 
pursuance of this promise; and the Court was requested to instruct the jury, 
that if they were of opinion, from the evidence that this was the history of 
the transaction, and that the slave was given in satisfaction of what Mrs. 
Williamson thought herself entitled to, and with a view of making peace in the 
family, they should find for the Plaintiff. The Court declined giving such 
instructions to the jury, who found a verdict for the Defendant; and a rule 
for a new trial being obtained, the Court discharged the rule, and the 
Plaintiff appealed.

Taylor, Chief-Justice: From the circumstances of this case, the Plaintiff can 
make out a right to the slaves in dispute, only by establishing such a 
transfer from Pender to his daughter as would be valid since the act of 1806. 
Unquestionably it cannot prevail as a gift, because it was not in writing, as 
that act requires. It is alleged, however, by the Plaintiff, that Pender 
passed the slave to his daughter as a compensation for a tract of land sold by 
him, on which she lived, and which land had been purchased with a slave that 
he had formerly given to her, but had taken away to pay for the land; that the 
slave now in question was given to the daughter in satisfaction of what she 
might think herself entitled to, and with a view of making peace in the 
family; and that the compromise of a doubtful right is a sufficient foundation 
on which to decree, the specific execution of an agreement. But the act of 
1806 must bear on this transaction, unless it can be shown that the slave was 
sold to the daughter. A sale implies a valuable consideration, as money or the 
like: it cannot exist without a valuable consideration; though the law 
established free gifts without the same. A consideration ought to be matter of 
profit and benefit to him to whom it is done, by reason of the charge or 
trouble of him who doth it. What profit or benefit could the father derive 
from the agreement of the daughter?

Assuming as a fact, that this slave was transferred in the manner alleged by 
the daughter in the conversation with her father, still the first negro was 
given to her, if given at all, while she was the wife of Williamson, in whose 
possession the slave was while he was at Tarborough. Upon his death, 
therefore, the right devolved upon his administrator, and his wife had no 
claim except under the statute of distribution, from the surrender of which to 
the father he could derive no benefit since it could not repel the right of 
Williamson's representatives.

The compromise of a doubtful right, recognizes a subsisting right in one or 
the other of the contracting parties. Here it was in neither. The gift of the 
father, if ever made, divested him of the right, and the same act placed it in 
Williamson. In the cases of compromise of doubtful rights, there is a distinct 
and intelligible right in one of the parties, and the effect of the compromise 
is to end a dispute, which must otherwise have terminated in litigation. 

In every view of the subject, the Court is of opinion that the Jury were 
properly instructed, and the rule for a new trial must be discharged.


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/halifax/court/davidpen842wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 8.3 Kb