Mecklenburg County NcArchives Court.....Richard Peoples, William T. Lemmond V. 1848
************************************************
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:
Connie Ardrey n/a February 1, 2010, 12:36 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1848

William T. Lemmond & Al vs. Richard Peoples & Al, 1848

Where slaves are conveyed by a deed, absolute on its face, but with a secret 
confidence, that the donees should hold them in a qualified state of bondage, 
that is, that the donees were to consult the benefit of the negroes and not 
their own emolument, this trust is illegal and there is a resulting trust to 
the donor.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Mecklenburg County, at the Spring 
Term 1848.

On the 26th of February 1844, William Query conveyed to the defendants a negro 
woman, named Linny, and her child, Mary, about six years old. The 
consideration expressed in the deed was $600. Soon afterwards he also conveyed 
to them a piece of land, containing 12 acres, for the consideration, as 
expressed, of $36. Both deeds were absolute on their faces and contain 
warranties.

In September 1846, Query died intestate, and the plaintiffs administered on 
his estate, and in November 1847, filed this bill. It charges that their 
intestate had not capacity to make a contract, and that the conveyances were 
unduly obtained without consideration. But the allegations in respect to 
incapacity and imposition are denied by the answer, and not established by the 
evidence.

The bill, however, further charges, that the purpose of the parties was to 
effect the emancipation of the negroes and give them a home on the land, and 
that the conveyances were upon secret trusts of that kind, or to some such 
effect; and insists, that such a trust is illegal, and that a trust resulted 
to the donor, and prays for a discovery and a conveyance of the slaves and 
their increase, and an account. 

In their answer, the defendants admit, that the deeds were made without any 
valuable consideration; but they state, that they were unsolicited by them, 
and were accepted at the earnest request of the intestate. They then give this 
history of the transaction: 

That the woman was a mulatto, and had been brought up by the intestate and was 
regarded by him with great affection; that, for several years, a free negro, 
named McAlphin, lived with her at the intestate's as his wife, and it was the 
wish of the intestate, that they should so continue to live; and he, 
therefore, permitted McAlphin to build a house on his land and raise crops, 
and the woman there lived with him - which was the place subsequently conveyed 
to the defendants. The defendants deny, that it was any part of the object of 
the bill of sale, that Linny and her children should be liberated, or sent to 
a free State; and say that it was designed by the deceased, that the property 
should be vested in them absolutely and without condition. 

They further state, that the real purpose of the deceased was to provide for 
the protection, comfort, and happiness of the woman Linny and her children; 
that he believed that, at his death, she and her family would fall into the 
hands of his relations and would be separated, without regard to his objects 
aforesaid; and that he accordingly placed the title of the land and negroes in 
the hands of the defendants, that the land might be a home for McAlphin, and 
that, by him or otherwise, it might be so arranged, that the woman might live 
there with McAlphin; that the defendants, accordingly, during the life of the 
intestate, permitted the man to occupy the land, and, for a small 
consideration, hired his wife to him - which arrangements continued until a 
short time before the bill was filed, when, in order to prevent the plaintiffs 
from getting them, the defendants took her and her children, including two 
born after the deed, into their own possession. 

The defendants further say, that they design faithfully to carry out the 
arrangement made by the intestate, and to exercise over the woman such 
control, as is necessary to her proper conduct and maintenance; that they 
claim the property in the slaves, to be appropriated in any manner they think 
proper, and that no part of the wishes of the donor extended to the children; 
and, finally, that they were selected by the intestate, as the objects of his 
kindness, because he had confidence in their integrity, and disposition to act 
fairly and justly by the woman, Linny.

Avery, William and Alexander for the plaintiffs
Osborne and Bynum for the defendants

[NC Supreme Court]
Ruffin, C.J. ...The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the relief sought, in 
respect both to the mother and the children, and to such profits, if any, as 
might have been made from the death of the intestate with just deductions; and 
the parties will take the usual orders for the proper enquiries. The 
defendants must be held thus accountable and also to be liable for costs, on 
account of their concurrence in contriving to defraud the law and policy of 
the country, by accepting a conveyance upon an illegal trust, kept secret 
because it was known to be illegal - and because they have endeavored 
unconscientiously to defeat the plaintiff's right of recovery, by attempting 
to set up an unfounded claim for their own benefit.

Per Curiam
Decree accordingly

[See court case for Judge Ruffin's complete findings]

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/mecklenburg/court/richardp1308wl.txt

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

File size: 5.7 Kb