On 25 Mar 1769 a John King of Anson purchased 300 acres on both sides of Suck Creek, but we do not know if this was our John King.  However, on 4 Jan 1777 there was a land transaction that mentioned land owned by John King and he appears to be William’s son.  Archibald Crockett and William McCullough, sons-in-law of William King, witnessed a land transaction for property located on the path to John King’s near William McCullough’s mill road.  

In 1779, 400 acres of land was sold in Mecklenburg.  The property adjoined John King’s land on the Indian line on Six Mile Creek.

Also in 1779, a Mecklenburg another deed transaction listed John King’s land as adjoining that of Henry Eustace McCullough.

On 10 Oct 1783 John King gave Thomas King a 400-acre tract of land in Sullivan County.  We do not have information that explains this transaction, nor do we have information about the relationship of Thomas King to the family.

In 1784 John King was again named in a deed as an adjoining landowner.  The property was located on McCalpin’s Creek at the Wagon Road.

On 12 Nov 1788 William King wrote his will and indicated that his children would divide his real estate equally.  William included the names of John and Elizabeth King McCorkle and  his two sons-in-law, Archibald Crockett and William McCullough.  Both were probably widowers and Archibald soon remarried.

William was alive in 1791 when he gifted a slave to his son John.  The record lists his     name as William King, Sr., however we do not have a record of a son named William, and often a Sr. or Jr. was used in a name to designate that another person with that name lived in the same area. The slave was age 15 and named Sam.  The witnesses to the transaction were John Crocket and Robert King.  We believe that Robert was John’s son.

It appears that William died the same year as this transaction.  An estate sale was held in 1791.

In 1792 and 1795, John sold properties that had been granted to his father, and they may have been part of his inheritance.

John was living in Greene County on 30 Jan 1792 when he sold 100 acres of a 300-acre property that had been deeded to William King on 21 Dec 1763.  The property was in both Mecklenburg and Greene Counties, North Carolina.  Portions of Greene County later became Jefferson County, Tennessee.  The property was sold to Frederick Ezel and was listed as adjoining the property of William King and James Story.  Witnesses included Archibald Crockett.

Another transaction occurred on 27 Aug 1795 in Greene County, Tennessee.  It is unclear, but it appears that John King may have sold the property that was originally a land grant to William King dated 8 Feb 1780.

On 10 Feb 1794 a marriage license was issued to Mary Ann King and William Campbell.  Mary Ann was a daughter of John King.

On 8 Apr 1794, a North Carolina grant for 150 acres in Hawkins County was issued to a John King.

On 2 May 1797, Janet King and Patrick Burns were issued a marriage license.  Janet was a daughter of John King.

On 30 Aug 1800 John King was living in Hawkins County and sold 400 acres to his son Robert for the amount of $5,000.  Robert was living in Knox County.  Andrew Jackson, who would later become President of the United States, prepared and registered the Indenture.

John King died between the years of 1800 and 1808.   His widow remarried in 1808.

Levice King and William Perrian were issued a marriage license on 22 Jul 1806.  Levice was a daughter of John King.

Some researchers have stated that Eli and Rebecca Kennedy were married about 1806.  We have searched, but have not found, a record of their marriage.  Eli was a son of John King.

On 17 Mar 1808,  Robert King and Patsey Kean registered a Marriage Bond.  Robert was a son of John King.

As mentioned previously, Mary, widow of John, married Abel Morgan in Grainger County, Tennessee on 9 Feb 1808.

Samuel Kennedy King, son of Eli and Rebecca King, was born on 31 May 1809.

On 3 Feb 1810, the Grainger County Court appointed a guardian for Jane King, daughter of John.  She was a minor, and her stepfather, Abel Morgan, was appointed.  Abel was also listed on the Grainger County Tax List in 1810.

On 6 Dec 1810, Adam Meek, who was one of the executors of John King’s estate, appeared in Jefferson County court to present a financial accounting.  He had hired out two slaves, Sam and his wife Nan, for the purpose of the maintenance and schooling of Jane King until she became of age.

Eli King had inherited a slave named Cuff and on 14 Jan 1810 in Jefferson County he sold Cuff for $500.00.  John’s will stated that Cuff would become Eli’s property ten years after his death. That would place the year of John’s death as 1800.

Robert King sold his full interest in his inheritance on 22 Apr 1816 to Adam Meek Kennedy. Adam was the brother of Eli’s wife, Rebecca.

John King, Jr., was a resident of West Florida when on 15 Feb 1825 he executed a Power of Attorney in Jefferson County records so that James Vance would be able to legally act on his behalf regarding his share and claim of two slaves under his father’s will.

In 1832 Mary King Morgan sold three slaves.  This action would result in a lawsuit in 1843.

On 15 Jun 1840, Mary King Morgan died.  Her second husband, Abel Morgan, had predeceased her. After her husband’s death she had lived with her son, Robert.

ELISHA SHARP VS. ELI KING ET AL., CASE #206

Original Bill

3 June 1843

Know all men by these presents that we Eli King, William Gallion Samuel K. King and John E. Grigsby are held and firmly bound unto Elisha Sharp and Robert King in the sum of five hundred dollars for the payment of which we bind ourselves and our representatives jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and dated this 3rd day of June 1843.

The conditions of the above obligation is such, that the above bound Eli King and William Gallion have this day filed this bill of complaint on behalf of themselves and their legal heirs and __?__ of the heirs, of John King, deceased, the said Elisha Sharp and Robert King, in the chancery court at Cleveland Bradley County Tennessee.

Now if the said Eli King and William Gallion shall with effect presents their said Bill, or in case, King fail therein, shall pay and satisfy all such costs as may be awarded against him for such failure, by said court, then the above obligation to be said, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.  Given under our hands and seals, this the day and date above written.

Eli King [seal]

William x[his mark] Gallian {seal]

Samuel K. King [seal]

John E. Grigsby [seal]

Complaint

Filed 3 Jun 1843

Editors’ notes:  Key Names in Complaint: Eli King (Plaintiff); William Gallion (co-signer of the bond and husband of Jane King, Eli’s sister); Elisha Sharp (Defendant); Robert King (Defendant and brother to those bringing the lawsuit); Samuel K. King (Securitor and son of Eli King); John F. Grigsby (Securitor and perhaps the husband of Eliza Anne King, Eli’s daughter, but unproven)

Transcription:  The record of a suit commenced in the Chancery Court at Cleveland, Bradley County, Tennessee, wherein Eli King, William Gallion and wife Jane Gallion, on behalf of Themselves and others complainants and Elisha Sharp is Respondent towit.

To the Honorable Thomas L. Williams Chancellor for the eastern Division of Tennessee presiding in the Chancery at Cleveland.

Eli King, William Gallion and wife, Jane, citizens of the County of Bradley and State of Tennessee on behalf of themselves, Mary Ann Campbell of the state of Alabama, Patrick Burns and wife Janett of the State of Alabama, also the proper personal representatives of William King deceased,  Margaret Burk deceased, Luvica Perrin deceased, and  John King deceased, there proper names and residence not known to Complainants, humbly complains of Elisha Sharpe of the County of  Meigs and the State of Tennessee, and Robert King of the County of Roane and the State of Tennessee.

And complaining herewith unto your Honor that John King late of the County of Grainger and State of Tennessee on the thirteenth day of July 1798 made and published his last Will and Testament and shortly after departed this life leaving your orator Eli King and Jane King who intermarried with orator William Gallion,  William King who has since the death of the said John, departed this life, John King also since the death of the Testator departed this life, Margaret King who intermarried with Robert Burk and who also since the death of the Testator John King departed this life, Mary Ann King who intermarried with William Campbell and said Campbell has since died, Janet King who intermarried with Patrick Burk, Luvica King who intermarried with William Perrin but who since the death of the Testator John King has also departed this life, and Robert King one of the defendants in this Bill, his children and heirs at Law and devisees in said Will which has been duly admitted to probate and recorded in the proper Court for the County of Jefferson in the State of Tennessee a copy of which Will is hereto annexed marked exhibit, A, and  prayed to taken as a part of this bill.

Your orators further show as will more fully appear by reference to the copy of said Will that said Testator in and by said Will appointed Mary King his wife, William King and Adam Meek his executors. Your orators further show that said executors above named took upon themselves the due and faithful execution of the trust reposed in them in them by said Will all of whom have departed this life; But Mary King was the surviving executive of said Will and who intermarried with one Able Morgan after the death of John King but who died leaving the said Mary living and the said Mary well and truly executed and preformed the trust in said Will except the matters hereafter complained of.

Your orators further show that said Mary Executrix aforesaid delivered over each of the devisees in said Will mentioned the Negroes therein specifically devised, and directed to be delivered over. Your orators further show the Negro woman now in said Will mentioned bore many children after the death of the Testator, as to produce sufficient number to satisfy all the specific devises of Negroes in said Will mentioned, which was well and truly done and performed by the said Mary and her co executors, and there still remains of Nan’s children born after the death of the Testator a negro woman named Amy and her children the names of which will be given hereafter which negro woman Amy a daughter of Nan in the lifetime of the said Mary Executrix as aforesaid bore the following named children to wit Phillip, Betsy and Nancy all of which remained over and above specifically devised and ordered to be given to individuals by name. By said Will.

Now your orators states and shows as will more fully appear by reference to a copy of said Will that said Mary only had a life estate in the said negro Nan and her children and said negro woman Amy being a child of Nan and her three children to wit Phillip, Betsy and Nancy being grand children of Nan, said Mary only had only a life estate in the same, and your orators and those on whose behalf this Bill is filed had a vested remainder and upon the death of the said Mary who was the surviving executrix of said Will had an immediate right to the possession to the said negroes.

Your orators further show that said Mary surviving executrix aforesaid departed on the 15th day of June 1840. but many years before that time the said Robert King defended in this Bill sold his interest in remainder which he held to Nan and her increase by virtue of the provisions of said Will to a certain Adam M. Kennedy then of the County of Knox but who since then and in the lifetime of the said Mary Executrix aforesaid departed this life intestate and left your orator Eli King Executor who proved said Will and took out letters Testamentry which is unrevoked and still in full force and shall be produced when called for by your Honor.

Your orators further complaining sheweth to your Honor that the said Elisha Sharpe and the said Robert King combining and confederating together to cheat and defraud your orators, and those on who’s behalf this Bill is filed of their just and vested right in remainder to said Negro woman Amy and her three children to wit Phillip, Betsy and Nancy about the year 1833 or 1834 when Phillip was about five years of age, Betsy four years of age, Nancy about eighteen months of age & Amy about twenty years of age and far advanced with pregnancy, said Robert King pretending that he and the said Mary of the said Mary had an absolute estate in the said Negroes and full power and authority to sell and convey and absolute estate in said negroes and the said Elisha Sharpe combining and confederating with the said Robert and the said Mary to cheat and defraud those that hold little in remainder to said negroes after the determination said Mary’s estate therein pretended he would purchase said negroes as having an absolute title thereto.

Your orators further charge that when said Sharpe pretended he would purchase said negroes of said Mary as having an absolute estate therein, and before said Sharpe did purchase said negroes, your orator William Gallion went to said Sharpe and informed him that said Mary held only a life estate in said negroes and that by virtue of the Will of John King her deceased husband and that she could not make him a good and absolute title to said negroes, and cautioned him not to buy said negroes, said Sharpe replied to your orator that he was going up the country though Dandridge where said Will was recorded that he would get a copy and examine it, your orator further charged that after this conversation and before Sharpe took said negroes into possession and before he pretended he had purchased them as will be more fully shown here after said Sharpe went up the country and on his return home again and before he pretended that he had purchased said negroes, your orator William Gallion went to him again and ask him if he got a copy of said Will or examined it as he passed through Dandridge, to which he replied he had and that he had found as your orator William Gallion had informed him.

Your orators further charge, that your orator William Gallion carefully charged said Sharpe not to purchase said negroes, that the children of John King the Testator of said Will would claim after the discrimination of the Estate which said Mary held in said negroes. But so it was may it please your Honor the said Sharpe notwithstanding he had said Will and had been carefully cautioned by your orator William Gallion not to purchase said negroes, afterwards towit in the year of 1833 or 1834 when said negro woman was about twenty years of age far advanced with pregnancy and worth about Seven hundred dollars, her son Phillip about five years of age and worth four hundred dollars, Her daughter Betty aged four years worth about three hundred dollars, her child a daughter about eighteen months old named Nancy worth one hundred & fifty, pretended to purchase the whole of  said negroes at the paltry and nominal sum of six hundred dollars, and took them into possession and shortly after carried them off or concealed them and has concealed them ever since.

Now your orators state as above shown that afterwards towit on the fifteenth day of June 1840 the said Mary departed this life at which time your orators and those on whose behalf this Bill filed became visited with the immediate right to take possession of said negroes; but said Sharpe had concealed said negroes and has ever since kept them concealed from your orators, and further refuses to disclose and show where said negroes are, or if he has disposed of them he refuses to disclose and show to whom and when.

Now your orators further charges and shows to your Honor, that said Sharpe advised of your orators rights and conscious that he had committed a fraud upon them, retained of the nominal and paltry sum of six hundred dollars, two hundred dollars to defraud any suit or claim that might be brought by your orators and those on whose behalf Bill is filed and declared he would not pay over the same to the said Mary or her order unless he received a conveyance from the children of John King for their interest in said negroes, said Sharpe refuses to disclose and show how many of the said negroes were living at the death of the said Mary or what increase said negro woman had had- or what said negroes were worth at the time of the death of the said Mary on the 15th Day of June 1840. or if he had sold them and they had gone out of his knowledge he refuses to disclose and show at what price he sold them.

Your orators cannot precisely tell what said negroes was worth at the time of the death of said Mary, but expressly charges that the negro woman Amy from the laws of nature must have had a child shortly after Sharpe took them into possession and that she and her child at the time of the said Mary must have been worth eight hundred dollars, the negro boy Phillip six hundred dollars, negro girl Betsy five hundred dollars, negro girl Nancy three hundred dollars.

And your orators further charge that from the Laws of nature to increase and mature said Amy and her family of children at this time towit the filing of this bill, must be of the value of Three Thousand five hundred dollars. Your orators pray that the said Elisha Sharpe and Robert King be made defendants to This Bill that they fully and completely answer upon oath each and every allegation in said Bill is as full complete and ample a manner as if the several matters and things Therein contained was here again set forth and they Thereunto particularly interrogated but let said Sharpe more particularly answer and say is your orator did or did not inform him that Mary held said negroes under the will of John King and only had a life estate in said negroes. and say if he Gallion did or did not caution Sharpe not to purchase as the heirs or children of John King would claim said negroes after the death of said Mary and more particularly answer and say if he Sharpe did answer and say that he had a copy or saw said Will, and that said Will was as he Gallion had informed him and let said Sharpe answer and say if he had a copy or saw said Will, and say whether or not Exhibit A to complainants bill is not  a true copy of said Will and say whether or not he saw a copy or the Will before he purchased said Negroes let said Sharpe answer and say if he did or did not inform said Gallion he Sharpe had retained of the sum of six hundred dollars the stipulated price at which he had purchased said Negroes, the sum of two hundred dollars to defend any suit or demand that might be set up by the children of John King and that he would not pay the same without the children of John King would release their claim to said negroes, and if not so, let said Sharpe directly and positively state and show how otherwise if the conversation was between him and Gallion before he went up to the country, what the conversation was after he returned about seeing the Will or seeing a copy of it. State positively how much he was to have given said Mary for said Negroes, how much he paid, how much he retained of the stipulated price, and for what purpose, let him more fully disclose and show whether he still holds said negroes and where they are; and what number of children woman Amy has borne since he took said negroes in his procession  or if he does not still hold the procession of said negroes or has he parted with his pretended or limited title, let him disclose and show to whom he sold and where said negroes are at this time, or the last information he had of them. and answer and disclose what price or consideration he received for said negroes, what price each was rated at or how much he received for the whole family let him answer and say what said negroes are now worth, and let them also answer and say what said negroes was worth on the 15th day of June 1840 or if he sold said negroes let him answer and show when to whom and at what price he sold each negro or if he sold the whole family let him answer and say what was the amount he sold the whole family for. Let said Robert King answer and say whether or not he did not a number of years since sell his interest to Adam M. Kennedy of the county of Knox; let him answer if Adam M. Kennedy has not since then departed this life and state whether or not Eli King is not his Executor let him fully answer and say what inducement if any he held out to Sharpe to purchase said Negroes and say whether or not he joined in said sale to Sharpe and if so whether or not did he and the said Mary or the said Mary pretend to sell and absolute title or the life estate only of the said Mary.

Your orators further pray that upon the final hearing of this bill if said negroes in the procession of said Sharpe and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court that they and their increase be decreed to be specifically delivered over to your orators, but if said Sharpe has sold said negroes and they are not within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court then your orator prays that an account be taken of the value of said negroes and there increase at the time of the death of the said Mary Executrix aforesaid, and that said Sharpe be decreed to pay the same with the lawful accruing interest thereon up to the time of rendering the final decree in this cause or pay the full value of said negroes at the time of the filing this bill with interest thereon up to the rendition  of the final decree; but if your orators are mistaken in the relief they have already prayed then they pray all such other and further relief as the Equity of their cause will authorize and warrant: that  proper Subpoenas and copies of this bill be issued by the Clerk and Master of the Chancery at Cleveland and be made returnable to the proper term thereof and orators will forever pray

Trewhitt & Gant                                                                                        

Solicitors for Complainants Eli King, William Gallion & wife Jane Gallion

John King’s Will a copy Exhibit A [not included here]

Depositions

June 1844

State of Tennessee

Jefferson County

Page 1A

Be it remembered that of the __- day of June 1844 I Daniel Meek an acting Justice of the peace for the County aforesaid by virtue of the power in me vested by the commissioner hereto __ __ to examine all witnesses as will on behalf of Eli King, William Gallion and other complainants as of Elisha Sharp, Respondent or of either them in a matter of controversy pending in the Chancery Court held at Cleveland in Bradley County Tennessee did cause to come before me at the house of Adam K. Meek of Jefferson County on date aforesaid William Perrin of Grainger County aged about sixty years. James Vance __ aged about seventy-one-years.  Alexander W. Meek aged bout fifty five years in as a witness in __ in behalf of Eli King, William Gallion and others in __ cause and the __ Perrin Vance and __ being duly sworn on the holy evangelist of __ deposeth and saith as follows.

Deposition of William Perrin

Quest 1st by Plaintif – Wm Perrin – Were you acquainted with John King formerly of Granger county now deceased as his wife Mary King also deceased.

Anser I never seen the said John King but was acquainted with Mary King who was said to be the wife of the said King.

__ by the Same, Did not the said Mary King subsequently intermarry with a man named Abel Morgan

Answer, I was present and I ___ the said Morgan and Mary King married

Question, by the Same, Is the Mary King who married Abel Morgan the same person named in the will of John King Snr decsd

Anser, That always was my understanding

Ques by the Same, Were you acquainted with the sons of the Sd John King deceased

Anser, I was acquainted with William, John, Robert & Eli King who I always understood was sons of the said John King, Snr deceased

Question by Same, were you acquainted with the daughters of the said John King deceased

Answer, I was acquainted with Mary A. Campbell formerly Mary A. King, Jennet Burns, formerly Jennet King, Lavicy Perin formerly Levicy King, Jiney Gallion formerly Jiney King all of whom I always understood were daughters of the said John King named above and the above named persons I have always understood to be the sons and daughters of the said John King deceased.

Question by same, were you acquainted with a certain negro woman named Nann who was bequeathed by the Last Will of the said John King to his wife Mary King subsequently Mary Morgan during the natural life of the said Mary

Answer, I was

Question by Same, Was there not a female child slave daughter of the said Nann named Amy which has not been divided according to the will of the said John King deceased

Answer, That is my understanding

Question by same, In whose possession did you last see the said girl Amy

Answer I saw her in the possession of the said Mary Morgan formerly Mary King

Question by same, Did the said Mary tell you that she had sold the said Amy and to whom

Answer, She did tell me that she had sold the said Amy to Elisha Sharp of Meigs county

Ques by Same, Did not the said Mary Morgan authorize you to receive one hundred dollars of the price of the said girl from the said Sharp

Answer, She did

Question by the same, When you applied to the said Sharp for the hundred dollars what was his answer

Answer, Sharp remarked that he was to retain the two hundred dollars then in his hands for the purpose of defending a suit should a suit be brought against him the said Sharp on account of the girl Amy

And further this deponent sayeth not

William Perrin

Deposition of James Vance Senr. aged about Seventy one years

James Vance being duly sworn deposeth as follows:

Question by Plaintiff, Were you acquainted with John King formerly of Grainger county deceased and Mary his wife lately Mary Morgan

Answer, I was for a number of years

Qes. by same, were you acquainted with the sons of the said John King deces’.

Answer, I was acquainted with William, John, Robert and Eli King sons of the said John King decea’d.

By the same, were you acquainted with the daughters of the said John King

Ansr. I was acquainted with Mary A. Campbell formerly Mary A. King, Margaret Burk formerly Margaret King, Jennet Burns formerly Jennet King, Luvicy Perrin formerly Luvicy King, Jiney Gallion formerly Jiney King, daughters of the said John King deceas’.

Question by same. Are the above named persons the same that is named in the last Will of the said John King deceas’.

Ansr. They are.

By the same. were you acquainted with certain negro slave named Nan the property of the said John King deceas’. and what disposition he made of said Slave.

Answr. I was acquainted with said slave Nan, and the said slave was bequeathed by the last Will of the said King and his wife Mary during her naurel life.

By same. Did not the said Mary King subsequently intermarry with a certain Able Morgan.

Answer, She did as herself and Morgan both informed me.

And further this deponent saith not                                                                    

James Vance

Deposition of Alexander M. Meek, aged about fifty five years, being duly sworn.

Question by the plaintiff, Were you acquainted with John King formerly of Grainger County now deceased, and his wife Mary also deceased.

Answer. I was for a number of years.

Ques. By the same. Did not the said Mary King subsequently intermarry with a man by the name of Able Morgan.Ans: I understood so I saw them passing as man and wife.

Qus: Were you acquainted with the family sd. John King dec.

Answer, I knew Wm, John, Robert, and Eli sons of the sd John King deceased, and Margaret, Mary Ann, Jennet, Luvicey & Jiney daughters of said John King deceased.

Qust. Were you acquainted with a certain negro woman named Nan. who was bequeathed by the last Will and Testament of John King dec. to his wife Mary King during her life subsequently Mary Morgan.

Answer. I was, she lived under the care of Mary Morgan, and the last I knew of her she Nan, still belonged to mary Morgan.

And further this deponent saith not.                                                          

Alexander M. Meek.

Deposition of William Griffen aged about forty one years, duly sworn

Qust. By complainants were you personally acquainted with Mary Morgan deceas’d

An. I was.

Question By the same, Was there a negro woman called Nan in her possession the mother of a negro girl called Ama.

There was.

Q. By the same, Did not Ama become the mother of three children before she was sold to Elisha Sharpe.

A. She did.

Q. By the same. What were their names.

A. Philip, Betsy & Nancy.

Q. By the same were not Ama and her children sound likely and valuable.

A. They was.

Q. By the same. Who bought Ama and her children from Mary Morgan.

A. Elisha Sharpe.

Q. By the same. What was Ama and her children according to your judgment worth the last time you saw them.

A. Nine hundred dollars.

Q. By the same if they had of increased in number and value since you saw them as  they did while you were acquainted with them what would they be worth the 15 of June 1840. which was the time of Mary Morgans death.

A. Eighteen hundred dollars.

Further this deponent saith not.

            His

William X Griffin                                                                                                                                      

         mark

Deposition of Robert King aged about fifty nine years, duly sworn.

Q. By complainants, By what name was your mother called in her latter days.

A. Mary Morgan.

Q. By the same. What was the cause of her being called by that name.

A. By her marriage with a man ca’d Abel Morgan

Q. By the same. Was she not formerly the wife of John King deceased and the same Mary mentioned in the last Will of the sd. King.

She was.

Q. By the same. Was there a negro woman left by s’d Will to the s’d Mary King during her natural life named Nan.

A. There was.

Lawsuit filed 18 Sep 1845

KING ET.AL. VS. SHARP.

Source: Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee; during the Years 1845-46. West H. Humphreys, State Reporter, Volume VI. Nashville, Tenn, 1846

Introduction:

The owner of a life-estate may dispose of it in any way, provided he do not defeat, injure or endanger the remainder.  If the tenant for life sell the entire interest to a third person such purchaser becomes a quasi trustee for the remainder-man – and if he remove the property with a knowledge of the rights of those entitled in remainder he is guilty of a fraudulent breach of trust which will charge him with the value of the slaves after the termination of the life-estate.

Summary of Court Case:

King died having made his wife tenant for life of certain slaves by his will, with remainder to his children.  The widow sold the slaves to Sharp.  Sharp was informed of the facts in regard to title.  He sold the slaves to a negro-trader who removed them beyond the limits of the State.  The widow died and the children of King, those entitled in remainder by the terms of the will, filed this bill in the chancery court at Cleaveland [sic] against Sharp.

The chancellor, Williams, decreed that the defendant deliver up the slaves or pay their value, to be ascertained by a report of the Clerk and Master.

The defendant appealed.

Trewhitt and Gant, for complainants.

Van Dyke, for defendant.

Green, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

John King, the ancestor of the complainants, made his will in 1798, and shortly thereafter died.  In the first clause of the will is the following bequest, viz: “I do leave and bequeath to my beloved wife, Mary King, horses, cows, sheep and hogs, with the household furniture to be wholly and solely at her disposal; and likewise Sam, Nan, and Cuff, for to be at her disposal for the use and purpose of working, and raising the children, or so long as she continues a widow, or until the children comes of age, then Nan to be hers during her natural life; then they to be equally divided among my children.”

The testator then proceeds to make several specific legacies of negroes in case Nan should have children so as that each of testator’s children should have a young negro, and “the rest to be divided as before.” Nan had a number of children, sufficient for all the specific legacies and also was mother of a girl, Amy, the subject of this suit.

Mrs. King intermarried with Abel Morgan, who died leaving her a widow.  The girl, Amy, was retained in her possession until about the year 1832, being then the mother of two children, Phillip and Betsey.  In 1832, Mrs. Morgan sold the negro, Amy, and her two children, to the defendant Sharp, for six hundred dollars.  Before Sharp made the purchase, he was informed by the complainant Gallion, that Mrs. Morgan had only a life estate in the negroes.  He enquired of Robert King, the name of the testator of the will by which the said negroes had been bequeathed, and where the will was recorded; after which, he started up the country, and on his return, purchased the negroes.  After Sharp purchased the negroes, Amy had another child, Nancy.

In 1836, Sharp sold Amy and her three children to a negro trader who took the negroes out of the country; but where they were taken, or what was the name of the purchaser, the respondent states he does not know.  Mrs. Morgan died in 1840.

The defendant, in the first place, insists that by the will of John King, an unlimited power of disposition of all his personal property is given to his wife, with which the subsequent bequest of a remainder to his children is inconsistent, and therefore, Mrs. King took an absolute estate in the negroes in controversy.

The clause of the will above quoted is somewhat awkwardly expressed, but there is no difficulty in understanding its meaning.  As to the stock and furniture an unlimited power of disposition is conferred; but in the bequest of the negroes, the language is entirely different, limiting the power of disposal, to the use and purpose “of working and raising the children;” then in express words, giving the widow a life-estate in Nan; then to be equally divided among the children. By the word “likewise,” the testator does not mean, that a like disposition is made of the negroes, to that which has been made of the horses, cows, sheep and hogs; but having devised the stock and furniture to his wife, he now “likewise” devises to her the negroes.  But he stipulates that the former are vested absolutely in her, whereas, the latter are only to be “used for the purpose of working and raising the children.”

2d.  It is next insisted that if Mrs. King had only a life-estate, she might lawfully sell, and the defendant might buy that estate; and that if she assumed to sell the entire estate, her interest in them also passed by the conveyance, and therefore she did the remainder-men no wrong.

It is certainly true, that a tenant for life of an estate may dispose of it at pleasure, so that he does not thereby injure the inheritance in remainder.  But every owner of a life-estate, either in land or slaves, is quasi trustee for the remainder-men.  The estate is committed to his hands, to be used for his benefit during life—but so to be used as that the property shall not be destroyed, and the remainder defeated.  If, therefore, the tenant for life, in selling nothing but his life-estate, shall willfully make such disposition as he knows will defeat the remainder, he is guilty of a fraudulent breach of trust; much more is he so guilty, if he assumes to dispose of the entire interest.  If a party may, fraudulently, combine with the owner of a life-estate in slaves, to defeat the remainder, by affecting to purchase the entire estate, and remove the slaves to parts unknown, so that they cannot be found, or identified, without incurring any liability to the remainder-man, it is easy to see that estates of this description will be of little value.  The temptation to commit frauds of this kind would be often seized with avidity by the owner of the life-estate, and the purchaser might easily put the negroes beyond the reach of the remainder-men, by their removal and sale.  In this case, the defendant Sharp was informed that Mrs. Morgan owned only a life-estate in the negroes; he made enquiry of Robert King about the will, and then, with full knowledge, or such information as put him on enquiry, and enabled him to obtain a knowledge of all the facts—he made the purchase.  By this purchase he acquired a right to the negroes for the life of Mrs. Morgan, and he was bound to hold them subject to the rights of those in remainder.  But instead of doing this, he has placed them out of the reach of complainants, with a view to defeat their rights.  He had no right to remove them beyond the State.  And if the complainants failed to anticipate his removal of the negroes, by a bill, to impound them, or to compel him to give security for the forthcoming of them at the termination of the life-estate, such removal did not thereby become less a wrong on his part.  It is his duty to have the slaves forthcoming, and so, he must make compensation for them, by the payment of their value.  Whether he withholds the delivery of them of choice, or is prevented from doing so, by his own previous fraudulent sale and removal of them, can make no difference.  In either case, the remainder-men are entitled to their delivery, or compensation.

END OF COURT DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPTIONS

END OF DOCUMENT

Prepared April 2, 2010  and revised June 21, 2010 by Joyce Disharoon