Kitty Lemon v. Ebenezer Bacon. Circuit Court Report Jennifer Guiliano Trevor Muñoz William G. Thomas III transcription and encoding Steph N. Camerone Kaci L. Nash Laura K. Weakly University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Maryland National Endowment for the Humanities 2016 O Say Can You See University of Nebraska-Lincoln Center for Digital Research in the Humanities
319 Love Library University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-4100 cdrh@unl.edu
oscys.report.0050.001 oscys.caseid.0395 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Derivatives must be credited to O Say Can You See, made available non-commercially, and distributed under the same terms. Requests for permission for commercial publication or other use should be emailed to the project team.

 Reports of Cases Civil and Criminal in the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, from 1801 to 1841 William Cranch Little, Brown and Company Volume IV 1852 Boston Supplementary Documents Court Report Civil Petition for Freedom May 1834 Lemon, Kitty Bacon, Ebenezer Hodgson, William L. Key, Francis Scott, 1779-1843 Taylor, Robert I. United States. Circuit Court (District of Columbia) Alexandria (Washington, D.C.) added xml:ids reviewed; edited transcribed; encoded

Negress Kitty Lemon v. Ebenezer Bacon.

An absolute deed of goods and chattels need not be recorded; and a record copy is not evidence.

Action for Freedom.

Mr. Key and Mr. Hodgson, for the plaintiff, offered in evidence the record of a deed of personal property.

Mr. Taylor, for the defendant, objected that a record copy of an absolute deed of good and chattels, for valuable consideration, need not be recorded, and derives no validity therefrom; and a record copy is not evidence.

And such was the opinion of the Court (nem. con.)

(See statue of Frauds of Virginia, p. 16.)