McGehee v. Ditto
McGehee v. Ditto
Opinion of the Court
Opinion oe the Court by
The appellants, James A. MeGebee, Joseph M. Phillips and Aun M. Phillips, his wife, and Adison 0. McGehee, brought this suit in equity against John K. Ditto, Ferdinand M. McGehee and
The defendant Ditto by his answer admitted that he received $900 for the services of Scott for one year from one Bichardson, who used him as a substitute, and that he gave Scott $50 of the money, and that he sold or hired said Sally to Armstrong, conditionally for a term of two years for $200, but he denied the alleged absolute sale and conversion of the slaves, or that he permitted or caused Scott to be taken out of the State.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ petition, and they have appealed to this court.
It sufficiently appears that the appellants James McGehee, Ann M. Phillips and Adison O. McGehee, and said Ferdinand M. Mc-Gehee, were the half brothers and sisters of said Elizabeth Ditto, and that said William C. McGehee was her brother of the whole blood, and that they and her mother, Eliza McGehee, were as heirs of said Elizabeth, the owners of the slaves in remainder according to the relationship they respectively bore to her.
It seems to us, also, that the disposition made of the slave Scott was equivalent to an absolute sale for $850, and was a substantial conversion of the estate in him in remainder, but at a time when the property in him as a slave had, in consequence of the civil war, become prospectively of little or no value; and for that and other reasons appearing in the record, we do not regard the transaction
As to the money received for the slave Sally, it does not appear to us that the plaintiffs manifested any right of recovery, as the transaction with Armstrong is not shown to have been more than a hiring of the slave for two years which expired during the continuance of the life estate.
But for the errors we have indicated in regard to the proceeds of the slave Scott, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings-not inconsistent with this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.