The will of John F. Wallis contained a provision that several of his slaves be given the choice between freedom in Africa or servitude under his daughter. Judge Dargan ruled that slaves lacked the legal capacity to make this choice. Therefore, they belonged to his daughter. (See Trotter v Blocker [6 Porter 269].) Carroll v Brumby, 13 Alabama 102 (1848).

While intoxicated, Eskridge chastised the slave Maria, who picked up an ax and told him to come no closer. He went inside and returned with a shotgun. When she moved away to the side, apparently in retreat, he shot her in the leg. The leg had to be amputated. He confessed the crime to the doctors who came to perform the surgery. Judge Chilton ruled that the prisoner could be tried for mayhem under Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution, which made unlawful the malicious dismemberment or killing of slaves. In this respect, both slaves and freemen were "on the same footing." Furthermore, the court said the confession was valid, even though the prisoner was intoxicated at the time. It also ruled that a master could use whatever forces necessary to subdue a slave, but could not threaten life and limb "unless impelled to such by an act of necessity." Finally, the court remanded the case because the charge had failed to clarify whether or not the slave belonged to Eskridge or his wife. Eskridge v State, 25 Alabama 30 (1854).

Peter Schwartz operated a grocery in Montgomery. Slaves and free blacks congregated outside the store and some neighbors thought Schwartz sold them whiskey. The state prosecuted him under an 1858 statute "to prevent nuisances and illegal trafficking with slaves." The indictment charged Schwartz with having permitted slaves and free blacks to loiter outside his store. The charge to the jury said that Schwartz was guilty, even if slaves and free blacks loitered there without his consent. On appeal, Judge Stone affirmed that the state was not required to prove affirmatively that Schwartz allowed the slaves and free blacks to assemble. It was proof enough that he failed to drive them away. Schwartz v State, 37 Alabama 460 (1861).

W.B. Martin borrowed $58 from Henry, who belonged to John Godwin. Subsequently, John Reed acquired the note and sued Martin to recover. Judge Stone wrote that Henry had no legal status to loan money. All he owned legally belonged to his master. Martin actually committed an offense by taking the money. Furthermore, he subjected himself to a legal action by Godwin by doing so. Finally, Stone ruled that no legal action could be taken on a note given by a slave. Martin v Reed, 37 Alabama 198 (1861).