McCormack, Anderson v. McCormack, Admr. of William, etc.: Chancery Cause, Halifax County (Part 10 of 16)
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.
paid. Even if this was not the understanding of the parties it is certain that Wm McCormack was either by retaining the title or by a lien on the said slave to have the unpaid purchase money paid by the children before an absolute right to the slave was to vest in them. The children did not pay the purchase money and it appears that the slave was sold for the purpose of discharging it. And under these circumstances it would appear to be inequitable to permit Anderson McCormack now to recover the said slave and her increase since the slave was sold for the purpose of raising the money which she was liable to be sold to raise and since it appears that she was sold to the Showalters at a fair price. But it now appears that Wm McCormack used $220.63 belonging to his children in the purchase of the said slave and of course Wm McCormack became their debtor for the said sum. And under the agreement between the father & the children the latter in case the father never vested the title in them would have had a lien on the said slaves in the hands of the father for the said sum. The Showalters purchased under circumstances which makes them purchasers with full notice & the lien on the said slave in favour of the children continued after the purchase of the said slave by them. And my opinion is that the relief that Anderson McCormack is entitled to is to have the $220.63 with interest thereon paid to him by the Showalters of by a sale of so many of the said slaves as will be sufficient to raise the said sum. Even this may be said to be doubtful since the sale of the slave was made in consequence of the failure of the children to pay the purchase money. But in a case like this, old and confused, and conducted in the most irregular manner it is difficult to come to an opinion without doubt and I shall give a decree to Anderson McCormack for the said sum of $220.63. I have not only difficulty in determining the principal controversy in the cases but to determine how the costs ought to be paid. In the first suit, Wm McCormack according to my opinion had a right to come into Court to prevent a sale of the slaves; and in this suit he ought perhaps to have his costs. But in the 2nd suit as Anderson McCormack obtains substantial relief he ought to have his costs, except the sum of $28.43 the Comm'r fee for taking the account of the rents & hires of the slaves. The Comm'rs fee for taking the special report should be paid by the Showalters.