{ "id": 1561021, "name": "Black v. Youmans", "name_abbreviation": "Black v. Youmans", "decision_date": "1915-10-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "209", "last_page": "212", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "120 Ark. 209" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "114 S. W. 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900496 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877186 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900496 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877186 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0205-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 356, "char_count": 5435, "ocr_confidence": 0.417, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.127122464144171e-07, "percentile": 0.5748632449227735 }, "sha256": "73ed7bcd5fde4c0ee09fac913d4c13625becfeb6d9e590d478956d4adb715d8e", "simhash": "1:84ce46fcaf676c70", "word_count": 919 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:48.789730+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Black v. Youmans." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Kirby, J.\nThis is a controversy \u00a1about a forty-acre tract of land in Lafayette County, Arkansas.\nTom Bridges, a negro, acquired it from the government by patent as a homestead, and \u00a1died in possession in 1912, leaving him surviving his widow, Ellen Bridges, and sister, Dolly Black, who claimed to be his only heir. They conveyed the land on July 25,1911, to ft. L. Montgomery, who afterward conveyed it to Burton, one of \u00a1appellants.\nAppellee purchased the land from George Williams, a \u00a1grandson, \u00a1of Tom, .alleged to be the only heir \u00a1of Viney Williams, the only child \u00a1of Tom Bridges. And in this .suit to cancel the deeds from Dolly Black and Montgomery to Burton \u00a1as clouds upon the title, recovered a decree below from which this appeal is prosecuted.\nIt \u00a1appears from the testimony that Tom Bridges, a slave, was married to Mandy \u00a1Cryer, another slave, \u00a1after the manner of .slavery marriages, and lived with her as his wife until her death \u00a1after emancipation, and \u00a1that there was bom to them an only child called Viney, Who was recognized 'by them as their child, and that George Williams, appellee\u2019s grantor, was the only child \u00a1and heir of said Viney Williams.\nThe testimony shows, too, not only that Viney \"Williams was recognized as their child toy her parents hut generally toy all as the child of Tom Bridges and Mandy, who lived together during slavery as 'hustoand and wife and .after the war until Mandy\u2019s death, and, although there is testimony tending to show that old Tom ranged widely from his own fireside and was rather promiscuous in his attention to other women, and from some of these excursions other children were bom, of which he was the reputed father, we are not atole to say that 'the chancellor\u2019s finding is clearly against the preponderance of the testimony.\n'Section 3, act February 6, 1867, provides:\n\u2018 \u2018 That all negroes .and mulattoes who are now cohabiting ,as hustoand and wife, and recognizing each other as such, shall be deemed lawfully married from the passage of this act, and shall be subject to 'all the obligations, and entitled to all the rights appertaining to the marriage relations ; and in all cases where such persons now are, or have heretofore been, cohabiting as hustoand .and wife, and may have offspring recognized by them as their own, such offspring shall be deemed in all respects- legitimate, as fully ns if born in lawful wedlock. \u2019 \u2019\nSaid .act, for some unknown reason, has not been carried into the digests of the statutes of Arkansas, but it has not been repealed, and the conditions requiring its passage for the protection of the children of slaves who could not legally marry, and the transmission of property acquired toy them, have not passed, nor the reason therefor failed. Marriages between negroes, falling within its provisions, have been 'held valid, and children horn of and recognized as their offspring by the parties have been held legitimate and capable of transmitting inheritances, and the statute has not become obsolete nor inoperative from long disuse. Scoggins v. State, 32 Ark. 205; Gregley v. Jackson, 38 Ark. 487.\nViney, the recognized child of this slave marriage, was legitimate, and her .son, George Williams, inherited the land in controversy from (his grandfather, Tom Bridges.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nAct No. 35, p. .98, Session Laws of 1867 (Rep.).", "type": "majority", "author": "Kirby, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. L. Montgomery .and Hal L. Norwood, for appellants.", "Searcy & Parks, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Black v. Youmans.\nOpinion delivered October 4, 1915.\nNegeoes \u2014 slaves\u2014children\u2014legitimacy.\u2014The act of \u2018 Feb. 6, 1867, providing that the children of former slaves shall be deemed legitimate under certain conditions, having never been repealed, controls in such eases and a child coming under the'terms thereof will be treated as legitimate and entitled to inherit property from its father.\nAppeal from Lafayette 'Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nB. L. Montgomery .and Hal L. Norwood, for appellants.\nIf section 3 of the act approved February 6, 1867, long .since dropped from our statutes iby the digesters, can be said not to have become inoperative by reason of non-usage (Endlich, Int. Statutes, \u00a7 495), the evidence does not warrant a decree for .appellee. The intention of the act manifestly was that before the offspring of slaves should be deemed in all respects legitimate, the evidence must be clear iand certain that such slaves did live together .as husband and wife, and that they did not cohabit with others. In this case, before the court would have been authorized to declare George Williams to be the legal heir of his grandfather, Tom Bridges, the testimony must have clearly shown that Tom recognized and lived with Mandv as his wife, and 'that he .did not occupy that relation with .any other woman, The proof is practically uncontradicted that Tom had as many as four \u201cwives,\u201d and that he had children by three of them.\nSearcy & Parks, for appellee.\nWe rely upon the act of February 6, 1867, \u00a1section 3. This act has been construed and upheld 'by this court. 32 Ark. 205 ; 38 Ark. 487.\nThe preponderance of the \u00a1evidence establishes the fact that Tom Bridges lived with the woman, Mandy, during slavery, claimed her as 'his wife, 'that she was generally 'known both by white \u00a1and black as Tom\u2019s slave wife, that by her he had la child, named Viney, the mother of George Williams, and that Tom claimed no other woman as his wife. Tom\u2019s acts of infidelity to his marriage vows can not affect the rights of his legitimate offspring 114 S. W. 781." }, "file_name": "0209-01", "first_page_order": 233, "last_page_order": 236 }