## Facts

- Three enslaved women (grandmother, mother, and daughter) sued for freedom, alleging descent in the maternal line from a free American Indian woman known as Butterwood Nan.
- Virginia law treated a child’s status as following the mother’s status (partus sequitur ventrem).
- The plaintiffs presented testimony that Nan and her descendants were regarded in the community as “Indians” and had physical traits associated with Indian ancestry.
- The chancery court found the plaintiffs’ appearance consistent with Indian descent and entered a decree declaring them free.
- The slaveholder appealed, disputing the ancestry finding and the chancery court’s reliance on the Virginia Declaration of Rights to presume freedom broadly.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs were free because they descended maternally from a free American Indian woman at a time when Indian slavery was barred by Virginia law.
2. Whether, after substantial evidence of Indian maternal ancestry, the burden shifts to the slaveholder to prove enslaved status.
3. Whether the Virginia Declaration of Rights creates a general presumption of freedom that would undermine property rights in enslaved Africans.

## Decision

- The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the decree granting the plaintiffs their freedom.
- The court held the evidence supported a presumption of American Indian maternal descent sufficient to require the slaveholder to prove otherwise.
- The court placed the burden on the slaveholder to establish that the plaintiffs descended from an enslaved African ქალი; he failed to do so.
- The court rejected the chancery court’s broad constitutional reasoning insofar as it would apply to “native Africans,” limiting the Declaration of Rights to free citizens and aliens and preserving established slave property rights.

## Legal Principles

- Under partus sequitur ventrem, a person’s free or enslaved status follows the mother’s status; proof of a free maternal ancestor establishes freedom for descendants.
- Where Virginia law prohibited Indian slavery, credible evidence of Indian maternal descent supports a presumption of freedom and shifts the burden to the party asserting ownership to prove lawful enslavement.
- The Virginia Declaration of Rights was construed not to invalidate existing property interests in enslaved Africans; its equality language was limited to free persons (citizens and aliens), not enslaved persons of African descent.

## Conclusion

The court freed the plaintiffs based on maternal-line descent from a free American Indian woman and a burden-shifting rule requiring the slaveholder to prove lawful enslavement, while simultaneously narrowing constitutional liberty arguments to avoid disturbing the legality of African slavery in Virginia.


Hudgins v. Wrights, 11 Va. (1 Hen. & Munf.) 134 (Va. Ct. App. 1806)