From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 21:05, 20 July 2019 by Kmh33469 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

be considered and declared free". It is settled by these decisions that an emancipated slave shall be free when the debts of his master are paid. How paid? and out of what assets? Clearly, as I conceive, out the assets which the Exr. is bound to account to creditors for. For suppose that an Exr. in a creditor suit is compelled to settle his accounts, upon the most rigorous principles adopted in such suits , and is decreed to pay & does pay the creditors out of the assets thus found to be in his hands and to be sufficient for that purpose, could he afterwards in a suit for freedom, insist that the paupers should not be allowed their freedom until they had refunded to him the difference between what he had actually received from the estate and what he had been charged with in the settlements made in the creditors suit? Clearly not. Can the principle to be applied to such cases then be varied by the fact that the creditors suit and the suits or freedom were united and heard together? I submit not. Suppose the pauper had not pled his bill in this case until after it had been ascertained and determined that the assets in the hands of the Exr were sufficient to pay the debts and he had been decreed to to pay and had paid those debts. Could he have objected in a suit by the plaintiff for his freedom that he should refund to him the excess between what he had actually received from his testators estate, and what he had been compelled to pay creditors of that estate? To such a defence by an Exr., would it not be a sufficient answer to say that the court of appeals have settled the law that a pauper is entitled to his freedom when the debts of his master have been paid and to aver that they were paid? And if they had not in fact been paid would it not be an equally sufficient answer to say that the Exr. had assets enough to pay them and to exhibit the settlement of his account in the creditors bill in support of the assertion? But it is farther insisted, under this head, that the pauper is not bound by the account settled in the creditor suit, but may insist that an account shall be settled in his suit upon the strictest legal principles; and it is now insisted in behalf of the defendant Garland; that if it should turn out upon a more strict examination of the account settled by Comr. Bryce in April 1845, that the assets in the hands of the Exr. are not proved by that account to be sufficient for the payment of all the debts of the testator, that an account shall be settled by the Exr. in which he shall be charged precisely as if he had obeyed the directions of his testator and sold the slave Albert immediately after the death of his testator and paid the money to F. Brooks admr. On the 1st day of Jan. 1839, when the Exr. should be held accountable for the value of the slave Albert the debt of F. Brooks admr. amounted to $726 the value of Albert to $600, leaving a valance of debt as of that day of $126.00 interest on this balance to Jan 1, 1844.