Johnston County NcArchives Court.....Jacob Brooks, Barnaby Bulls 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:
Guy Potts http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00017.html#0004214 January 20, 2009, 4:31 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1819

John Davis, Adm'r of Barnaby Bulls v. Jacob Brooks

From Johnson

May Term 1819

Construction of the act of 1806, relative to the gifts of slaves. The act was 
made to put an end to litigation, perjury, and the difficulty of investigating 
ancient transactions, of which parol gifts of slaves had been so fruitful.

The second proviso to the third section exempts the case of a gift from a 
parent to a child, of slaves which remain in possession of the child at the 
time of the death of the parent, intestate. In such case the slave or slaves 
are to be considered as an advancement to the child, and to be regulated by 
the laws then in force relating to advancements made to children by a parent 
in his life-time.

Such advancement is a gift, or not, at the option of the child: if after the 
death of the parent, he elect to bring it into hotchpot, he may do so, and 
come in for a distributive share; but if he be satisfied with what he has 
received, he may consider it as a gift, protected by this proviso; and this 
proviso is not confined to gifts theretofore made, but extends to gifts 
thereafter to be made.

This was an action of detinue for the recovery of negro Nanny and her 
children, and negro George.

On the part of the Plaintiff, it was proved that these slaves were once the 
property of Barnaby Bulls; that his daughter intermarried with Willis Watson 
in June, 1807, and that shortly after the marriage Bulls told the negro Nanny 
that she must go to Watson's, and wait upon his daughter; that he would not 
part her from her husband, but she must go and stay until he got another to 
send in her place. Another witness proved that a few days before Nanny went to 
Watson's, Bulls said he intended to send her there to wait on his daughter. 
Another witness swore that he was once called upon by Watson to write his 
will, and that Watson, after disposing of his property, said, that as to Nanny 
and her children he would have nothing to do with them, but leave them to his 
wife and her father to manage. This witness also swore that George went into 
Watson's possession in the spring of 1807 or 1808, from three to six months 
after the marriage; that he had only one conversation with Watson about the 
negroes, and that was when he was called upon to write his will and being 
asked to repeat the conversation, he said that Bulls told him he had bought 
the negroes at John N. Smith's sale, and had sent them to him, and that his 
wife might have them; he would have nothing to do with them. Upon further 
examination, he said, Watson told him the negroes were not part of his 
property; and upon his last examination, he said, Watson's remark was, that 
Bulls and Betsey (Watson's wife) might do as they pleased with them. There 
were circumstances in the appearance of this witness, and variations in his 
evidence, which called upon the jury for an exercise of their judgment as to 
his credibility.

Another witness swore that she had lived some time in Watson's house, and 
frequently heard Watson say that the negro Nanny and her children were not his 
property; that Bulls had never given them to him, and he did not expect he 
ever would; that he had a mind to send them home, as they were only an expense 
to him.

As to the negro George, the evidence was that he come into the possession of 
Watson after the marriage; and a witness said that wishing to purchase him, he 
applied to Bulls for the purpose, who told him that he had given the negro to 
Watson and he must apply to him.

Barnaby Bulls died intestate, leaving Watson and his daughter surviving him. 
Watson died, and the Defendant, as his Executor, took the negroes into his 
possession. One Jernigan then married the widow of Watson, and applied to 
Brooks, the Defendant, to know whether he would deliver the negroes up to 
Bull's administrator? He answered that he would hold them as the property of 
Watson, whereupon this suit was brought.

The Judge left it to the Jury to say whether a parol gift had been made by 
Bulls to Watson; and instructed them that if they believed such gift had been 
made, the Plaintiff could not recover; but if they believed there was only a 
loan of the negroes, he should have a verdict.

The Jury found for the Defendant, and a rule for a new trial being obtained, 
the same was sent to this Court.

Taylor, chief Justice: The act of 1806 was made to put an end to litigation, 
perjury, and the difficulty of investigating ancient transactions, of which 
parol gifts of slaves had been so peculiarly prolific. With this view, the 
sixth clause requires that such gifts shall be in writing, signed by the 
donor, attested by at least one credible witness, and proved or acknowledged, 
and registered within one year, in the county where the donee resides, 
provided he be in the actual possession, otherwise to be registered in the 
county where the donor resides. From this general purview, the second proviso 
to the third section exempts the case of a gift from a parent to a child, of 
slaves which remain in possession of the child at the time of the death of the 
parent, intestate. In such case, the slave or slaves are to be considered as 
an advancement to the child, and to be regulated by the laws then in force 
relating to advancements made to children by a parent in his lifetime. The 
case described in this proviso has then occurred in the state of facts 
exhibited in this case; and no law then in force permitted to recovery of an 
advancement by the representatives of the parent. It is a gift, or not, at the 
option of the child advanced; if, at the death of the parent, he elect to 
bring it into hotchpot, he may do so, and come in for a distributive share; 
but if he be satisfied with what he has received, he may consider it as a 
gift, and a gift protected by this proviso. There is nothing in the language 
of the proviso, from which an intention in the legislature can be inferred to 
confine its operation to gifts theretofore made. If such only had been 
intended, it is highly probable that the language used would have been more 
explicit, and more expressive of such an intent. But the words "shall have 
put" clearly embrace the case before us. There must be judgment for the 
Defendant.


File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/johnston/court/jacobbro760wl.txt

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

File size: 6.8 Kb