Milly v. Stephen Smith
View original image: Page  114
[missing figure]

of said MillyMilly 'till May 1827. When he removed her from IllinoisIllinois
as above stated; of that said Shipman had for several years
been in possession of her till she was taken away as before
mentioned. The Circuit CourtCircuit Court having refused to give
several instructions prayed for by the Sheriff plaintiff
proceeded to instruct the Jury that if they believed from
the evidence that said Shipman executed said mortgage
for a valuable consideration to said SmithSmith , that said
SmithSmith became in Virtue thereof the legal owner thereof
of said MillyMilly . And that said MillyMilly could not be free by
her residence in IndianaIndiana and IllinoisIllinois in virtue of Ordin
=ance of 1787. unless, it appeared to their satisfaction that
SmithSmith assented to the removal, of said MillyMilly to which
last instructions the plaintiffs counsel excepted; and
also excepted to the refusal of the Court, to give the instruc
prayed by the plaintiff which it is not considered
material to notice at this time.

This Court is not disposed to veiw the deed of
emancipation with much favor. The plaintiff can
-not be regarded as a purchaser for a valuable consider
-ation a slave having nothing to give, but it has after
been decided by Courts of the late Territory of MissouriMissouri
and of this State that slaves carried into IllinoisIllinois with a
view to residence and staying here long enough to acquire
the character of residents do by virtue of such residence
become free. The plaintiff in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court made out
a prima facie case of freedom. but if SmithSmith be the legal owner
and did not at the removal of the plaintiff
from KentuckyKentucky to IndianaIndiana and IllinoisIllinois, then we are
of opinion that the plaintiff did not acquire her freedom
by such residence. This mortgage as it is called, was made