Click on link to open

Donna Cooper's Family Connections

Go to John & Liscomb (Taylor) Haddock

Go to Pitt County, NC

Go to North Carolina

Go to Taylor Family

Blount v. Haddock: Supreme Court Case Files, Number 1028. State of North Carolina, Newbern District, John G. Blount Adm. of Daniel Niale vs William Haddock: Action of Detinue for a Negro man named George - Pleas, General Issue and Statue of Limitations - The Writ bears test the nineteenth day of September, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety five, is marked "issue" March [illegible] and was returned March Term one thousand seven hundred and ninety six, endorsed, "Executed March 6th by William Eastwood D. S." - The cause was tried at the term of March, one thousand eight hundred in the Superior Court of Law for the District of Newbern and the following special verdict found - viz That the Negro in question was the property of William Taylor who on the twenty seventh day of May, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, made a deed of Gift of the same to his daughter Sarah Taylor in the words following viz - "North Carolina, Pitt County, To all to who these presents shall come: Know ye, that I William Taylor of the County and Province aforesaid, for the love, good will and affection which I have and do bear towards my daughter Sarah Taylor, have given one Negro boy named George, which said Negro boy I do by these presents, fully freely and absolutely, give grant and bequeath unto my said daughter Sarah, to her heirs and assigns forever, reserving the use of said Negro to me my wife Dinah during our natural lives and after our decrease to be her own proper wright and property, which said Negro I promise myself, my executors to warrant and defend to her the said Sarah, against the [second page] the lawful wright, title or claim of any person whatsoever. In witness whereof I the said William Taylor have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of May Anno Dom 1765 - Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of Martin Nelson, Mary N, Mary Edwards. William Taylor [his T mark]

May Court 1765: Ordered to be registered - that Sarah the daughter afterwards intermarried with Daniel Neale the plaintiff's interstate, that the said Sarah died about the year one thousand, seven hundred and seventy five, and the said Daniel soon afterwards, that William Taylor the donor died in the year one thousand, seven hundred and ninety four, and Dinah the wife of the donor died in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety five, that the said William Taylor and Dinah his wife, continued in the possession of the said Negro until their deaths. - The Jury pray the advice of the Court, if the Plaintiff be intuited to recover, they find the Defendant does detain the Negro described in the Declaration of the value of one hundred and fifty pounds and that the Statute of Limitations does not bar, and assess the Plaintiff's damages to forty two pounds, fifteen Shillings and six pence Costs - But if the Court should be of opinion that the Plaintiff is not entailed to recover, then they find the defendant does not detain - I hereby certify that the foregoing state of the Case is truly extracted from the original papers in this office, & the above & foregoing special Verdict is true Copy from the Records of the Court - In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Court this thirteenth day of May in the XXIVth year of American Independence AD 1800 - L. W. Arnell CSCL Newbern District

John G. Blount, Adm'r of Daniel Neal, v William Haddock, Conf, 75 [In NC and until 1875 the high court was known as the Court of Conference.] Slaves to whom the wife has a right in remainder, do not vest in the husband, if he died during the covertures without having reduced them to possession. This was an action of detinet brought in New Bern Superior Court of Law for a Negro man named George. Pleas non det and stat. lim. The cause was tried as March Term 1800, and the following special verdict found: "That the Negro in question was the property of William Taylor, who on the 26th of May 1765, made a deed of gift of the same to his daughter, Sarah Taylor, in the words following, to wit: 'North Carolina, Pitt County: To all who these presents shall come: Know ye that I, William Taylor, of the county and province aforesaid, for the love, good will and affection which I have and do bear towards my daughter, Sarah Taylor, have given one Negro boy named George, which said Negro boy I do by these presents, fully, freely, and absolutely give, grant, and bequeath to my said daughter Sarah, to her, her heirs and assigns forever, reserving the use of said Negro to me, my wife, Dinah, during our natural lives, and after our decrease, to be her own right and property, which said Negro I promise myself, my executors, to warrant and defend to her, the said Sarah, against the lawful right, title, or claim of any person whatever. In witness whereof, I, the said William Taylor, have hereunto set my hand an seal, this 27th day of 1765. William [his x mark] Taylor. Signed, Sealed and delivered in the presence of Martin Nelson, Mary Nelson and Mary Edwards.

May Court, 1765, ordered to be registered: That Sarah, the daughter, afterwards intermarried with Daniel Neal, the plaintiff's interstate: that the said Sarah died about the year 1775, and the said Daniel soon afterwards; that William Taylor, the donor, died in the year 1794, and Dinah, the wife of the donor, died in the year 1795; that the said William Taylor and Dinah, his wife continued in the possession of the said Negro until their deaths. The jury pray the advice of the Court, if the plaintiff be entitled to recover. By the Court. As this property never vested in possession during the coverture of the plaintiff's interstate with his wife, Sarah, he could only have recovered in the event of his surviving the donor and his wife, by taking out administration upon his decreased wife's effects. And even then the property would have been assets in his hands to pay the debts of his wife, contracted while she was sole. Upon his death, his administrator can recover at law only such things whereof he might have acquired the possession in his own right, and not those which he was compellable to pursue in a representative character. The administrator of the wife, therefore, is the proper person to bring this action against the wife, and the residue belongs to the representatives of the husband as her next of kin.

 Taylor kinsmen, Myron Banks, helped with documents that added information to our Taylor files.

And Taylor researcher Tommy Colbert also helped with these files.

Have a photo or document to share?

© Copyright 2003 -2004 - 2005 by Donna Haddock Cooper
All Rights Reserved