Download North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh Book in PDF, Epub and Kindle
This is a supplementary manuscript file for this case. Unsuccessful petition to rehear a decretal order pursuant to the will and codicil of William S Morris and the emancipation of some of his slaves. This manuscript case file has the papers covering the repayment of [dollars] 2,013.81 by Lane and Durand in 1853, with receipt for this amount, following their loss of this case. The will of William S Morris had directed that his slaves, a mother, Patsy, and her three children, Harriet, Albert and Freeman, should be removed as soon as possible out of the state for the purposes of emancipation. Provision was made for their subsistence and education. Some eight years later he made a codicil and republished his will. He gave to trustees a lot and house in Newbern as well as certain personal property including furniture and livestock, upon trust on condition that they allow the slave mother to occupy and enjoy the property during her lifetime, and at her death to surrender up the estate to the other slaves. It was held that this indicated a change of mind by the testator, his intention that she should reside upon the lot and not be removed for emancipation. This raised the question of what the testator then intended for her slave children. The slave boy Albert died before the testator. The defendants, Lane and Durand, the executors, had removed Patsy, Harriet and Freeman to Pennsylvania for their freedom and permanent residence there in 1850. Part of the estate was used to pay the costs of removing the slaves, to furnish funds for their subsistence and to pay Patsy for two years' rent on the house and lot. The plaintiffs were the other legatees and next of kin. The petitioners wanted a rehearing on three grounds. It was argued that the Court was in error in considering the will and codicil to be separate instruments. The remainder in the property was given to Patsy's children without any condition. There was a dispute about the meaning of the words use and occupy. The petitioners' counsel tried to suggest that word occupy could mean having possession whilst Patsy still resided in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also argued that the testator said that the codicil was part of his will. The Supreme Court disagreed with these points, even though they were eloquently made, and the petition was dismissed with costs. The court took the view that the testator changed his mind and intended Patsy to reside in Newbern. Legacy for Harriet's son, William Henry Morris, to be paid out of the proceeds of selling other lots was still held to be void. Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if it was settled that Patsy should reside in Newbern, then this did not apply to the other slaves. Again the Supreme Court disagreed. The executors, having failed in their petition, had to account to the plaintiffs accordingly as per Chief Justice Ruffin's original ruling the year before. For the main manuscript file relating to this case, see case 6180.2; for another supplementary file, see 5370.2.