Taylor v. Stone
This text of 2 Va. 314 (Taylor v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[315]*315The appellant claims as a bona fide purchaser of the slave in question at a sheriff’s sale under an execution against Anthony Pate, one of the defendants. It does not appear, by any testimony in the cause, that he had, at the time of the sale, any notice of the equity existing between the complainant and Anthony Pate, if any did exist. The bill of sale from the complainant to the sons of Anthony Pate was absolute. The sale was forbidden on the ground that the property belonged to the sons, and not the father; but the appellant was apprized that the father was the real purchaser, and not the sons. The slaves were in his possession; and he was willing to incur the risk of there being any latent equity between them. If any had existed, he had notice, and must have lost the property. But, with respect to the equity of the complainant, founded on the alleged ground that the bill of sale was intended to operate as a mortgage, he had no notice until after the sale. The bill of sale was evidence to the contrary. In the case of Hooe & Harrison v. Pierce’s Administrator,
The decree of the chancellor is to be reversed, and thp bill, dismissed as to the appellant Taylor.
1 Wash. 217.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Va. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-stone-va-1811.