West v. . Hall
This text of 64 N.C. 43 (West v. . Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There is no error.
It is settled that a contract for the purchase of a slave is not illegal, even when made after the Proclamation of the President, the slave not being under the control of the military forces of the United States: Harrell v. Watson, 63 N. C. R., 454.
In our case the contract, was made in 1859, so the matter is too plain for discussion.
The evidence in regard to the warranty of title, was properly rejected. It did not tend to support any of the pleas. Indeed there was no breach of the warranty. The negro was a “ slave for life,” and the contract could not, in any way *44 be affected by the event of the late war, and the abolition of the institution of slavery.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Note. — In another ease at this term, between the same parties, in. ■which N. F. Hall was the principal defendant, the facts and questions were the same; and the same judgment was rendered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 N.C. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-hall-nc-1870.