Making History: Transcribe is made possible in part by federal funding provided through the Library Services and Technology Act program administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Daniel: Freedom Suit, Northampton County (Part 1 of 3)

image 10 of 24

Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.

This transcription is complete!

and Mayer instituted a suit sometime in the year 1850, in this Court against the said James H. White for the recovery of their freedom, and that on the 12th day of December 1851 they were declared by this Court to be free. But this defendant is advised, that that decree has no effect against any party, except the defendant and those claiming under him, posterior to the decree. And this defendant further answering saith that in the progress of the said suit in chancery it was made manifest for the first time to the creditors of the said Obedience White that the said slaves were his property and belonged of right to his estate. It was made to appear that a collusive sale was made for some $50 in the year 1824 or 1825 of the said Mary senr. who is the mother of the said other negroes and that a certain Severn Savage became the pretended purchaser but paid the money of the said Obedience White which had been furnished by said White for the said Mary. And that the said Mary and her issue were never out of the possession of the said Obedience White but continued in it until his death in the year 1835. This fraud on the creditors of the said Obedience White was never discovered until the said negroes instituted the said suit in chancery for the recovery of their freedom, and in the progress of that suit it was made to appear in the depositions taken in it. And this defendant further answering saith and expressly charges that the said Obedience White remained [infeasible?] and quiet possession of the said Mary and her children for ten years after the said pretended sale in 1824 or 1825 and that the said sale made in one of those years was collusive and fraudulent, and that the said Nancy White never acquired any legal or equitable title to the said slaves under the said sale unless the same enured to the benefit of her husband, the said Obedience White. And this defendant further answering saith that he admits that the said Major S. Pitts in his lifetime on the 20th day of May 1824 did recover a judgment in the superior court of law for the said county against the said Obedience White for the sum of $1575:94c with interest thereon from the 19th day of July 1823, and for $1:71c costs of suit, on which judgment an execution of fieri facias was issued on the 5th day of February 1825, whcih was countermanded subsequently. This defendant also admits that Com W. Cenlter after the death of said Obedience White and on the 9th day of March 1835 did qualify in the county court of said as administrator of said Obedience White and that after the death of said Cenlter the said James H. White qualified as admr de bonis non of the said Obedience White, deceased. And this defendant admits that the said William G. Pitts duly qualified as admr de bonis non with the will annexed after the said Major S. Pitts, deceased, who died in September in the year 1827. And he admits that the said judgment recovered by said Major S. Pitts against said Obedience White, was regularly revived by suit of fiere facias on the 29th day of May 1852 by the award of execution by this court; and he admits that on the 28th day of June last past a write of fieri facias was sued out on the said last mentioned judgment. And this defendant further answering saith that he admits that the said William G. Pitts was assigned the said judgment and execution to this defendant to secure the payment in part of a much larger sum of money which the said William G. Pitts owes this defendant than the whole amount [illegible] bearing to be due on the said judgment and execution against the said Obedience Whites admr de bonis non, and he admits that the said execution was levied on the said slaves as the slaves of the estate of the said Obedience White, deceased. And this defendant further answers denies that the said negroes or any of them have ever been regularly and legally emancipated, or are now entitled to their freedom. In regard to the alleged payment on the bond or judgment or execution against the said Obedience White, this defendant answering saith that he hath no knowledge of any such payment nor has she any reason to