Bell v. Greenfield
This text of 3 F. Cas. 103 (Bell v. Greenfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Court
contra,) refused to permit the paper to be read in evidence to the jury as a will or testamentary paper.
Mr. W. L. Brent, then offered to read the paper to the jury as an instrument of manumission, under the 29th section of the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67, and contended that it is not necessary that the instrument of manumission should be signed or acknowledged by the party. That clause of the section which requires acknowledgment and recording applies only to manumissions intended to take effect in future; not to present manumissions.
But the Court (Thruston, J., contrd,) refused this also.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 F. Cas. 103, 5 D.C. 669, 5 Cranch 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-greenfield-circtddc-1840.