Allen v. . Peden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Allen v. . Peden

4 N.C. 442

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1816·Published

Opinion

The administrator in this case was in law the owner of the persons emancipated by the General Assembly. The act of emancipation passed not only without his consent, but against it. However laudable the motives which led to the act of emancipation, it is too plainly in violation of the fundamental law of the land to be sanctioned by judicial authority.

We are compelled to announce it a nullity, and to give judgment for the plaintiff.

Cited: Robinson v. Barfield, 6 N.C. 423; Allen v. Allen, 44 N.C. 62;Bryan v. Wadsworth, 18 N.C. 389; Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 16, 17;Wilson v. Jordan, 124 N.C. 715; R. R. v. Cherokee, 177 N.C. 97. *Page 334

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The administrator in this case was in law the owner of the persons emancipated by the General Assembly. The act of emancipation passed not only without his consent, but against it. However laudable the motives which led to the act of emancipation, it is too plainly in violation of the fundamental law of the land to be sanctioned by judicial authority.

We are compelled to announce it a nullity, and to give judgment for the plaintiff.

Cited: Robinson v. Barfield, 6 N.C. 423; Allen v. Allen, 44 N.C. 62;Bryan v. Wadsworth, 18 N.C. 389; Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 16, 17;Wilson v. Jordan, 124 N.C. 715; R. R. v. Cherokee, 177 N.C. 97. *Page 334

Allen v. . Peden, 4 N.C. 442 (N.C. 1816).

Pincite

4 N.C. 442 (Allen v. . Peden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related