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 16 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!

fraud which the said Obed White had perpetuated until after the suit brought by the complainants Daniel, Abraham, George Jr and Mary Sr sometime in the year 1850. In that suit it was made to appear that the said slaves formerly belonged to said Obedience White and were sold on or about the year 1823-4 or 1825 and were purchased for about the sum of $50 which was paid by the said Obedience White out of his own funds, and that they remained in his possession until sometime in the year 1835, and that the said Nancy White, or any friend of hers never did buy and pay for the said slaves with their own money and that therefore the said sale and purchase or purchase at least was fraudulent and void against the creditors of the said Obedience White. The sale was fraudulent and if they were purchased for the said Nancy White by any of her friends for her the mental rights of the said Obedience White attached during his possession of the said slaves for nearly ten years because there never was a deed [shade?] settling the said slaves or any of them [illegible] the said Nancy White. The said Obedience White was generally regarded as insolvent up to and after the time of his death and the frauds committed by him in regard to the holding of the said slaves and the sale of them never came to this defendant's knowledge nor does she believe they ever came to the knowledge of the said Major S. Pitts or any representative of his until within the last five years. This defendant has no doubt that the relationship of the complainants to each other is correctly stated in the said bill, and he has no knowledge that any fact of the said judgment original or revised has been paid and he positively denies that he entered into any fraudulent arrangement with the said James H. White to induce him to allow the said original judgment to be revived against him, and he desires that he was to pay one cent to the said James H. White to evidence him to allow the award of execution against him by default & he never has paid him one cent for doing so. And now again denying all fraud this defendant prays that said injunction may be dissolved and this defendant hence [illegible] with his events etc W. G. Pitts