Milly v. Stephen Smith
View original image: Page  107
[missing figure]

In the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of March Term -1828-

MillyMilly suing for freedom
vs.
Stephen SmithStephen Smith

And now at this day comes, the said MillyMilly
the Appellant by J. SpaldingJ Spalding her Attorney and says
that in the record and proceedings aforesaid and in the
rendition of Judgment aforesaid there is manifest error in this towit: that by the record aforesaid it appears that
Judgment is given for the said Stephen SmithStephen Smith whereas
by the law of the land it ought to have been given for
the said MillyMilly and against the said StephenStephen ; and
there is also error in this towit that said Circuit CourtCircuit Court
refused to give to the Jury the instructions and each of
them which were prayed for by said MillyMilly . Whereas by
law said Circuit CourtCircuit Court should have given each of said
instructions; and there is error in this towit that the
Court instructed the Jury in such manner and form as
appears by the bill of exceptions, that said deed of emancipa
-tion was void and that the said MilleyMilley could not
become free by her residence in IndianaIndiana & IllinoisIllinois
unless,SmithSmith assented to the removal of said MillyMilly thither
which last mentioned & referred to instructions ought
not by the law of the land to have been given, and so
said Judgment is [ erroneus ]. And said MillyMilly prays that
the same for these and other errors in the record, and
proceedings aforesaid may be reversed & for naught
held & said MillyMilly may be restored to all things which
she hath lost by reason of said Judgment

J. SpaldingJ Spalding
for Appellant

In nullo est. erratum
Geyer