.MTY5NDM.NzA0MTk

From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 17:40, 7 July 2019 by Kmh33469 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

XXXVII section in these words, provided Nevertheless that all slaves so emancipated, shall be liable to be taken in execution to satisfy any debt contracted by the person emancipating them before such emancipation is made III. In England anciently the remedies for reclaiming a fugitive Villain regardant to a Manor and for liberating a free man from unlawful durance, were the writs de nativo habendo in one, and de homine replegiando in the other instance, those remedies are obsolete in that Country, were never as is believed used in this and are not comprehended in the terms of the statute for limitations of actions. Yet an equitable analogy, exposition of that statute will supply the Just and Sound Rule of decision in the principal case. The Statute when it is pleaded successfully i.e. producith a two fold effect, extinction of a right in one party consequent acquisition of a right of a right in the other for elucidating which are feigned these examples. 1st David Bradley proprietor of Abby and Sally now supposed to be Slaves in September 1792 disposed of them wrongfully by William Ragsdale in October 1797, Commenceth an action to recover them the statute in pleaded and the plea sustained. Here is extinguished the right of David Bradley. 2 if he David Bradley regain the possession from Wm Ragsdale who from an usurper had by the statute become an owner, William Ragsdale may recover the slaves back again, here is exerted the Consequent right in William Ragsdale acquired by length of possession in virtue of the Statute. Now will not the statute which sanctifiyed William Ragsdales long possession of the slaves altho' wrongfully, originally, sanctify Abbys and Sallys long enjoyment of liberty voluntarily granted to and without their fault accepted by them? and have they not acquired the same right to their freedom