This case is about slaves or slavery.
|Citation:||8 G. & J. 39|
|Short Summary:||Holding that the slave boy in contraversy was in constant possesion and there was no necessity for the bill of sale, yet the issue may not be sold or maintained. "But independently of this view, which so strongly recommends itself upon principles of public policy; and considering the issue of female slaves, in the light merely of rents and profits, the claim of the appellants to have them sold for the payment of their debt cannot be justified, because, though a mortgagee in possession, may be entitled to the rents and profits, it is only when he is in possession, that he is so entitled; and then he must account for them, as an offset to the interest on the mortgage debt."|
|Full name:||Evans and Iglehart vs. Joseph E. Merriken|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Maryland|