Nathaniel Hooe charges that his son-in-law, William A. Harrison, refuses to return the slaves and their increase loaned to him in 1831. Hooe, who is Harrison's father-in-law, contends that Harrison acknowledged this arrangement by executing "an instrument of writing in nature of a receipt to orator for his slaves as a loan, until such time as your orator chose to reclaim them." Hooe admits that he lost the receipt in 1834. Hooe also states that he advanced funds to Harrison when the latter agreed to manage some of his property in Mississippi and Alabama, an area where Harrison and his wife, Hooe's daughter, had moved shortly after their marriage. After Hooe's daughter's death in 1840, Hooe visited his Mississippi plantation to reclaim his property. He claims, however, that Harrison refused and still refuses to comply with his request. The petitioner asks the court to order Harrison "to deliver up" all the slaves and their increase, and to provide an accounting of their labors and profits from crops. In his related answer, Harrison countercharges that the slaves were given, not loaned to him, and that Hooe has in fact enticed two of the slaves away from him, for which he, Harrison, has instigated suit against Hooe. In 1843, Hooe filed an amendment to his bill, telling the court that the slaves in dispute had been in his family for many years, with the exception of a slave named George and his family who had been purchased from the estate of one Mr. Park. To distinguish the two Georges, Hooe informs the court, one was called Blacksmith George and the other George Park.
Or you may view all people.
Repository: Pickens County Courthouse, Carrollton, Alabama
