
    ZACHARIAH H. CLARK, trustee, plaintiff in error, v. THOMAS C. JENNINGS, administrator, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    June Term, 1870.)
    MARSHALLING ASSETS—SLAVE NOTE—JURISDICTION —A bill was filed to marshal the assets of a decedent’s estate, and the Court decided that a note given for the purchase-money of a slave was not entitled to be paid out of the assets of the estate:
    
      Held, that in accordance with the ruling of a majority of this Court, in Shorter v. Cobb, and White v. Hart, the Court below' had no jurisdiction, or authority, to enforce any debt, the consideration of which was a slave or slaves.
    Constitutional Law. Slave Notes. Before Judge Andrews. Oglethorpe Superior Court. April Term, 1870. ‘ •
    Jennings,' as administrator of one Mattox, filed his bill for direction and marshalling the assets of' said estate, against the creditors of Mattox. Clark, as trustee for Mrs. Hayes, was one of Mattox’s creditors, and was claiming part of the assets upon a promissory note, given by Mattox, on the 6th of January, 1860, to him, as such trustee, for $1,900 00. On it $135 00 had been paid on the 21st of January, 1861, and $200 00 on the 1st of August, 1862. It was admitted that this note was due and unpaid, and that there was a sufficiency of assets for its payment in part. But it being also admitted that the note was given for a slave, the administrator contended that the Court could not order anything paid to said trustee on said note.
    There was no dispute as to any other fact. Thereupon the Chancellor entered a decree excluding said note from participation *in the said assets. He put his judgment upon Article V, Section XVII, Clause I, of the Constitution of Georgia, of 1868, holding the same to be constitutional.
    (Here counsel for plaintiff in error submitted the cause without argument, stating that his object was to take the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States.)
    Robert Toombs, for plaintiff in error.
    Matthews & Reid, for defendant.
    
      
      COiNTRACTS—SLAVE CONSIDERATION—JURISDICTION. —See foot-notes to Shorter v. Cobb, 39 Ga. 285; White v. Hart, 39 Ga. 306.
    
   WARNER,' J.

According to the ruling of the majority of this Court,' in Shorter v. Cobb, 39th Georgia Reports, 285, and White v. Hart, Ib., 306, the Court below had no jurisdiction or authority to enforce any debt, the consideration of which was a slave or slaves.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.  