Auld v. Norwood,
Annotate this Case
9 U.S. 361 (1809)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Auld v. Norwood, 9 U.S. 5 Cranch 361 361 (1809)
Auld v. Norwood
9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 361
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SITTING AT ALEXANDRIA
Decided: if the owner of a slave permit her to remain in the possession of A. for four years, and A. then, without the assent of the owner, delivers her to B., who keeps her four years more, the possession of B. cannot be so connected with the possession of A. as to make it a fraudulent loan within the act of assembly of Virginia, in regard to B.'s creditors.
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action of detinue for a female slave named Eliza. Upon the
trial of the general issue in the court below, the plaintiff in error, who was defendant in that court, took a bill of exceptions which stated that evidence was offered of the following facts:
The slave, in November, 1798, was the property of John Dabny, against whom a fieri facias was issued at the suit of Norwood, the present defendant in error upon which the slave was seized and sold by the proper officer; that one Charles Turner bought her for the said Norwood, and held her as Norwood's property until November, 1802, when he delivered her, without authority from Norwood, to one R. B. Jamesson, who held her until September, 1806, when he became insolvent under the insolvent act of the District of Columbia, and delivered her, as part of his property, to Auld, the plaintiff in error, who was appointed trustee under that act. This suit was commenced on 19 September, 1806.
Whereupon the plaintiff in error prayed the court to instruct the jury that if it found the facts to be as stated, the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover. And if the court should not think proper to give that instruction, that they would instruct the jury that the plaintiff's suffering the slave to remain out of his actual possession for so long a time was fraudulent in law as to the defendant, which instructions the court refused to give, and the defendant Auld excepted. The verdict and judgment being against him, he brought his writ of error.