Morsell v. Baden
Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. It is scarcely necessary to say, that imder the existing Constitution, the particular relief sought by this bill cannot now be granted. When the bill was filed, a sale of the negroes, Caroline and Solomon, might have been decreed, upon the presentation of a proper case, but as they have been declared free by the organic law of the 397 State, the claim of tbe appellant, that they should be sold for the purpose of paying the debt alleged to be due to him from the estate of his intestate, can no longer be maintained. In view, however, of the question of costs, we think it proper to express in brief, our opinion of the case, as it stood upon the law when it was argued; and for that purpose, it will be sufficient to determine whether the deed, manumitting the negroes, Caroline and Solomon, was executed in prejudice of any then existing right of the appellant, as creditor of his intestate, the party executing the deed.
The appellant, to prove his claim, offered in evidence a short copy of a judgment rendered against him, in favor of James and William Morton, for the amount of a single bill, dated the 1st of January 1834, executed by Jeremiah M. Baden, with the appellant as surety. It also appears from the testimony of William Morton, that the single bill was given by Baden for the aggregate amount of a debt, a large portion of which was contracted prior to the 1st of January 1833, and that the judgment, above mentioned, was paid by the appellant in 1846. This claim is the only one supported by evidence, although the bill was filed on behalf of such other creditors as should come in and. contribute to the costs of the suit. The appellee alleges, that upon the payment of the above mentioned judgment, he was entitled to be substituted to the previous rights of the Mortons, as creditors of Baden, and that the deed of manumission was in prejudice of those rights, and therefore void.
It is evident from this statement of the case, that the appellant, even if substituted to the rights of the Mor-tons, as they existed before judgment, would not be entitled to claim as a creditor prejudically affected by the deed. The debts, due from Baden to the Mortons previous to the 1st of January 1834, were merged in the single bill; and if it bo assumed, that the
This is a preview of Morsell v. Baden. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.