Legal question concerning a slave

[Hank Trent]

This actually happened. I'm trying to figure out who legally owned the slave at the end, to see who was most likely paying the slave-catchers who were chasing him. After wading through 75 hand-written pages of trial testimony, I'll write it up like one of those first-year law-student puzzles to try to keep it simple.

There are three people, we'll call them Simon Legree the slave trader, Mike Fink the steamboat captain, and Delmonico the restaurant-owner (not their real names, obviously).

Simon Legree sells the slave to Delmonico. The slave runs away. Simon Legree refunds Delmonico's money, since the slave wasn't as obedient as he advertised him to be. At this point, I believe the slave would belong to Simon Legree again, since he rescinded the sale.

Now, here's where it gets tricky.

The slave escaped on Mike Fink's steamboat. Simon Legree sues Mike Fink for not stopping him and wins damages totalling the value of the slave.

Does the missing slave belong to Mike Fink now, because he "paid" for him? Or does he still belong to Simon Legree because there was no actual sale? If Simon Legree catches him, could he keep both the slave and Mike Fink's money?

In other words, who would benefit most now from catching the slave, Mike Fink or Simon Legree?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

May we ask questions for further clarification?

If so, ...is this scenario before or after the Fugitive Slave Act went into effect? How was it discovered that Slave was on Mr. Fink's steamboat? What was the status of Slave's paperwork (did he have a permission paper, forged emancipation documents, no documentation) and how diligent was Mr. Fink in ascertaining the status of the paperwork?

If this is after the Fugitive Slave Act, it is my understanding that Slave has been legally returned to Mr. Legree according to the mandates of the law, so Mr. Legree retains legal control of Slave (and is responsible for Slave's actions while away from his direct supervision). The damages brought against Mr. Fink should be assessed and distributed according to the law, as a legal fine for breaking the Fugitive Slave Act. If the Court System awarded this fine paid by Mr. Fink to Mr. Legree, Mr. Legree is entitled to keep it.

Should this have taken place before the Fugitive Slave Act went into effect, then "ownership" is a bit trickier.

[Silas]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

This actually happened. I'm trying to figure out who legally owned the slave at the end, to see who was most likely paying the slave-catchers who were chasing him. After wading through 75 hand-written pages of trial testimony, I'll write it up like one of those first-year law-student puzzles to try to keep it simple.

There are three people, we'll call them Simon Legree the slave trader, Mike Fink the steamboat captain, and Delmonico the restaurant-owner (not their real names, obviously).

Simon Legree sells the slave to Delmonico. The slave runs away. Simon Legree refunds Delmonico's money, since the slave wasn't as obedient as he advertised him to be. At this point, I believe the slave would belong to Simon Legree again, since he rescinded the sale.

The action is in equity and is likely based upon fraud or misrepresentation. The contract is null and void. The remedy is that the sale is undone. The parties are returned to their respective positions before the sale occurred. This means Delmonico gets his money returned, and title reverts to Legree.

Now, here's where it gets tricky.

The slave escaped on Mike Fink's steamboat. Simon Legree sues Mike Fink for not stopping him and wins damages totaling the value of the slave.

Does the missing slave belong to Mike Fink now, because he "paid" for him? Or does he still belong to Simon Legree because there was no actual sale? If Simon Legree catches him, could he keep both the slave and Mike Fink's money?

At common law, the title would continue to remain with Legree. If Legree sued upon some statute, title might get passed to Fink, but I doubt it. This sounds like a standard legal action for money. Fink just owes a money judgment, he doesn't get title, too. He might pay the judgment, but more likely, he won't. (Good luck catching Mike Fink or some other slippery waterman who will skip town at first chance.) Legree has ways of enforcing the judgment such as having the sheriff seize the boat and offer it up at auction. (This is why Fink will attempt to skip town.)

If Legree should catch the slave or otherwise be returned to Legree, Fink may be entitled to a refund of all or a portion of any money paid to Legree. Otherwise, Legree has recouped an unjust benefit.

In other words, who would benefit most now from catching the slave, Mike Fink or Simon Legree?

They both benefit. Fink would be relieved of the judgment less any of Legree's unpaid attorney's fees included in the total judgment amount. Legree has his chattel returned. Everybody except for the slave is happy.

That's my best take on the situation as written. Look at the beginning of the document. It should note the equitable and legal theories of relief requested. The end of the document will note which theories were granted. Bear in mind that I don't do any civil law in my practice any longer. Eleven years ago, I narrowed my practice to only criminal. Early in my career, I did a few cases involving cars which resemble parts of your scenario. I'd be interested in skimming through the documents if you could scan and send them by email. Old time legal practice is fascinating.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

May we ask questions for further clarification?

Sure. :)

If so, ...is this scenario before or after the Fugitive Slave Act went into effect?

It would be after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 but before the 1850 act, so people were subject to a $500 fine for obstructing a slave catcher or concealing a slave, if criminal charges were brought against them, raised to $1,000 by the 1850 act. But as far as I can tell, no criminal charges were involved, so it was totally a civil matter concerning property.

How was it discovered that Slave was on Mr. Fink's steamboat? What was the status of Slave's paperwork (did he have a permission paper, forged emancipation documents, no documentation) and how diligent was Mr. Fink in ascertaining the status of the paperwork?

This is why the 75 pages of testimony were necessary. :) Trying to keep it as simple as possible... someone else, unconnected to everyone involved, recognized the slave from seeing him previously enslaved and said "arrest that boy; he's a runaway." Mike Fink didn't believe him and did literally nothing. The slave slipped off the boat later and disappeared. That's oversimplifying greatly (there were a couple of boats and captains and witnesses involved), but I don't think any of the other details would affect the legal ownership at the end.

If this is after the Fugitive Slave Act, it is my understanding that Slave has been legally returned to Mr. Legree according to the mandates of the law, so Mr. Legree retains legal control of Slave (and is responsible for Slave's actions while away from his direct supervision). The damages brought against Mr. Fink should be assessed and distributed according to the law, as a legal fine for breaking the Fugitive Slave Act. If the Court System awarded this fine paid by Mr. Fink to Mr. Legree, Mr. Legree is entitled to keep it.

As far as I can tell, it's a civil suit, so the damages were based on the actual appraised value of the slave, which was fairly high, several times more than the maximum $500 fine. Everyone agreed that Mike Fink didn't act maliciously, but he did make a mistake that lost Simon Legree an expensive piece of property, which is probably why Simon Legree filed a civil suit rather than press criminal charges.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Hank Trent]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

Thank you, Silas. You were posting while I was typing. :)

Fink just owes a money judgment, he doesn't get title, too.

That answers the question, then. It looks like Mike Fink might still have an incentive, but it would probably require another civil suit to get his money back from Legree for unjust benefit. So as a practical matter, Legree would have a stronger incentive to hire slave catchers, since he would still have title to the slave as soon as he was caught, and thus he could resell him without any legal fuss. Besides, he'd be more apt to have a network of slave catchers ready to go than Mike Fink.

Does that sound right? Thank you!

Legree has ways of enforcing the judgment such as having the sheriff seize the boat

Yep, that's exactly what he did.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[David Fox]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

I wonder. Legree initially gave Delmonico his money back, a species of what on TV infomercials today would be termed a "money back guarantee". Would that necessarily presume the title to the slave would revert to Legree? I'm putting a new display in our Henderson County museum relating to slavery with original paper, including pro- and con- novels, emancipation newspapers, and the like. Included will be an 1862 printing of the North Carolina Supreme Court reports containing litigation over slaves. It's interesting to note that with the passing of the peculiar institution in 1865, a whole corpus of law developed over many decades became immediately void.

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

A quick tangent... many templates for legal documents of the period may be found in a book called "The American Lawyer: and Business-man's Form Book." Found on Google Books here.

Thank you very much. You may now return to your regularly scheduled mental exercise. :-)

[Marc]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

This would make a great Living History Trial..may be long but it would be fun.

[Kirby]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

The answer to this question is simple, the slave is considered property. The suit is for total loss of property or property damage, once the damages have been pay by steamboats insurer, the insurance company owns the title to the slave. In modern terms this is similar to someone being in an accident, and resolving a property damage claim as a total loss. Once the defendants insurer pays the plaintiff for the total loss the insurer is then the rightful owner of the property in question. The steamboat captain is not liable unless he was negligent and committed a crime at the same time, then he would be exposed to punitive damages. Again, in modern terms someone is hit by a drunk driver, the drunk driver's insurance has a claim brought against their insured and the claim is settled. At this point the plaintiff may see additional damages known as punitive damage because the defendant broke the law while committing a negligent leading to either monetary or physical harm to the plaintiff.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

once the damages have been pay by steamboats insurer, the insurance company owns the title to the slave.

So you're saying the title would end up with the steamboat owner, which is the opposite of Silas, who said the title would remain with the slave trader. See, this is why I asked, because it's complicated. :)

Actually, there was no insurance company involved, and no punitive damages, so the judgment was against the steamboat captain for the actual value of the slave as proven by his last sale price, plus "the cost of suit," with the steamboat being provisionally seized to pay for it.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Philip cav]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

I think that the loss of "property" would be payed by Mr. Fink. I am not a legal expert. But this would be an interesting a living history trail. Never have seen a living history trail.

Pvt. Philip Brening

[Kirby]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

In order for the steamboat to take on cargo, there must be some "insurance" protection against loss. I will go a little deeper into what I mean by "insurance" in the previous sentence in a moment, but as a matter of fact, there is no doubt in my mind the the boat had an insurance company to protect the interested party, whomever that may be, in case of sinking. But, it is important to note that this insurance offer through a company is for the boat itself and not the cargo. If you really dig you will probably find the insuring company of the boat.

Now, going back to the cargo "insurance" protection against loss. If the boat was paid for, which I assume to be true, must offer it's own "insurance" against loss of cargo, this is called a self insured entity. In modern terms this is fairly rare, but there are still a few things that are self insured entities mostly cities, counties and states at this point. The boat being a self insured entity, then offers itself as collateral to take on cargo that does not exceed the total value to the self insured entity. So, a boat that was work 10K could only take on 10k worth of cargo. The same scenario plays out at this point as I described it with an insurance company involved, the the owner of the boat would then hold the title to the lost property. So this explains why the boat was seized, the boat is acting as collateral against the value of the lost property. Once the owner of the lost property is paid, they then forfeit all rights to said lost property and title then transfers to the "insurer" whether that is the boat's owner or an actual insurance company. So there is your answer.

[Kirby]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

Sorry, for the errors. I should proof read but you get the point.

[Philip cav]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

That clears this up in my mind. So Mr. Fink or the insurance company would own the slave. After paying for lost property that is. Thank you

Pvt. Philip Brening

[Kirby]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

You got it. Who pays the claim owns the slave. Just like a modern property damage claim.