The bill was for a foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendant Allen purchased a slave named Ned, and other articles at a sale made by the administrators of one Littleton Patillo. Allen was one of the distributees of the personal estate of Patillo; and at the sale he requested the plaintiffs to be his sureties in a bond to the administrators, promising them that the administrators might retain his distributive share to satisfy the bond when it became due.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1917
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
after stating the case as above, proceeded: We think thei'e are two answers to the defence of Williams. First, the equity of redemption in a mortgage of slaves, is not in law subject to an execution. The Sheriff had no authority to levy on it, therefore he could transfer no title or interest to Williams as purchaser under his sale. The equity of redemption in
lands
is liable at law to an execution by force of the act of Assembly, 1 Rev. Stat. ch. 45, sec. 5, but the redemption of slaves or other personal estate, is not embraced in the act.
Secondly,
Whitesides, by the mortgage has the legal estate in the slave ; and this Court would not prevent him foreclosing his mortgage and compel him to look to the distributive share which had never in fact been assigned to him, but rested only on Allen’s agreement to assign, the administrators being no parties to that agreement ; this is not a reason sufficient to prevent a foreclosure. There must be an account taken, and if the defendants do not redeem by a day to be fixed, the slave must be sold and the plaintiffs’ debt and cost paid out of the purchase money.
