Legal question concerning a slave

[Hank Trent]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

In order for the steamboat to take on cargo, there must be some "insurance" protection against loss.

I think I see the misunderstanding! The slave wasn't being shipped as cargo. He snuck onto the boat unbeknownst to both his owner and the captain. So insurance to cover cargo wouldn't cover his loss, as it would if he were being transported under contract. For insurance to cover the incident, I think it would need to be what we'd call liability insurance today, for not checking the boat thoroughly enough for the presence of runaway slaves.

Yes, the boat itself was covered by insurance, $20,000 if I recall correctly. It was four years old, so worth less than new. And I'd expect that the cargo was covered too, as you said, either through insurance or self-insured.

In this case, though, the slave incident wouldn't be loss of cargo, it would be more like, hmm.... somebody goes over to the neighbor's house to mow the lawn while they're gone, leaves the gate open even though they've been told not to, and the dog runs away. If the dog-owner sues for the value of the dog and wins, and the lawn-mower pays, who owns the dog if it's later found, the dog's original owner, or the lawn-mower who let it escape?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[1860sEsquire]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

I am a 21st century lawyer not a 19th century lawyer but I wanted to add some clarification and point out a couple of things to remember when we're analyzing Hank's very interesting question:

First, this was a case filed, tried and adjudicated under 19th century substantive and procedural law; secondly, this was a 19th century case dealing with a slave, which had its own unique substantive and procedural aspects. For one thing, we'd need to know when and where the cause of action was filed, i.e., state or federal court and which law or laws the court applied (and, if the slave was found, where and what law the court would apply if a subsequent suit was filed). We need to be really sure we are applying the law and procedures in place at the time this slave case was adjudicated rather than apply modern substantive and procedural law and assume they had similar consequences in 1810, 1820, 1840 or whenever this case actually arose.

For example, most 19th century cases involving runaway slaves were filed in state court as "actions in trespass to chattel", that is, the plaintiff-owner asserts some interference by the defendant which interferes with the plaintiff's right to possess/use his personal property, in this case, the slave. Under Hank's fact pattern, the plaintiff, being successful, was awarded the full value of the slave, since he was not found/returned at the time of trial. Had the slave been returned at the time of trial, the plaintiff could have instead sought damages equal to the value of the slave's services during the slave's absence.

As between S and D, D likely alleged breach of contract based on fraud/misrepresentation. Hank mentioned that S refunded D's purchase price. Hank didn't mention anything about D suing S; so, I'm assuming that what actually happened is that D choose to seek restitution of the purchase price and recisison of the sale contract rather than sue S for money damages. When the contract between S and D was rescinded, ownership of the slave would have reverted back to S, which is why S had standing to sue M, the steamboat captain, for trespass to S's chattel, the missing slave. If the slave is subsequently found and returned to S, who would still have title to the slave, presumably, M could sue to have the original judgment reduced to the value of the slave's services while he was missing. It's important to note that title to slaves only arose in one of several ways, such as by deed/bill of sale, devise/inheritance or possession. The original sale by S to D transferred title in the slave from S to D. When D rescinded the contract of sale, title reverted back to S. S still had title to and ownership of the slave at the time of the slave's escape. That is why he was awarded the full value of the slave. Title would have remained with S and, if the slave was later found, S could claim the slave as his rightful chattel. However, let's suppose that the slave was caught by another slave owner, X, and remained in that slave owner's possession for a number of years. If S claimed ownership of the slave, X could allege that he had title to the slave by virtue of continued possession. We'd then see an interesting lawsuit between S and X . . .

These are just my initial thoughts and reasonable minds may differ; after all, that is what makes legal cases so interesting - also, I make no pretense of being an expert on 19th century slave law but I am generally familiar with some areas of slave law, having an interest in 19th century legal practice.

Thomas Federico
Armory Guards
Alpharetta, Georgia

[Hank Trent]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

As between S and D, D likely alleged breach of contract based on fraud/misrepresentation. Hank mentioned that S refunded D's purchase price. Hank didn't mention anything about D suing S; so, I'm assuming that what actually happened is that D choose to seek restitution of the purchase price and recisison of the sale contract rather than sue S for money damages. When the contract between S and D was rescinded, ownership of the slave would have reverted back to S, which is why S had standing to sue M, the steamboat captain, for trespass to S's chattel, the missing slave.

Thanks so much for your reply! The above is the way I understand it. The suit started out in both their names, then, there was testimony that S refunded D's money, and the next papers filed contained only S's name. There are bits and pieces missing, so I'm guessing that S voluntarily refunded D's money to avoid bad publicity and keep a happy customer, and carried on the suit himself. This all took place over the span of several years, starting in the parish court of New Orleans after the incident occurred in the 1830s and working its way up to the Louisiana Supreme Court over the next few years.

However, let's suppose that the slave was caught by another slave owner, X, and remained in that slave owner's possession for a number of years. If S claimed ownership of the slave, X could allege that he had title to the slave by virtue of continued possession. We'd then see an interesting lawsuit between S and X . . .

You have no idea how interesting! By the time the lawsuit finally ended, the slave was... (bet you didn't see this coming) a published author who had been helped in his escape by some even deeper pockets than the steamboat captain. None of the people involved in the suit realized it, though, and neither his publisher nor readers nor those assisting him after he got off the boat, realized the suit was occurring down in Louisiana, so he was never recaptured and no one but the steamboat captain was on the hook for his value.

I was hoping to identify the three slave-catchers who were chasing him several months after the suit started, but no luck, even focussing on the assumption that the slave-dealer would have held title and therefore been most apt to pay them. What was interesting about the slave catchers, was that one of them was black. Apparently, that wasn't unheard of, since blacks could go undercover more easily and trace underground railroad routes, among other things.

Thanks again to everyone who replied!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[crabby]

Re: Legal question concerning a slave

Hank,
While the following in no way addresses your questions, it is an interesting side story relating to the Fugitive Slave Law.
Mechanicsburg has an Ohio Historical Marker that tells the story of Addison White.

THE AD (Addison) WHITE SLAVE-RESCUE CASE
SOURCE: Henry Howe. Historical Collections of Ohio in Two Volumes. Cincinnati: C. J. Krehbiel and Company (Printers and Binders), 1888.
Mechanicsburg in the days of the Underground Railroad was one of the regular deports for the fleeing fugitives from slavery. Her people were noted for their abhorrence of the institution, and never failed to give such shelter and protection. In 1857, when "the Fugitive Slave Law" was in operation, an attempt was made by the United States Authorities to seize a slave (one Ad White), who had found a home with a farmer in the vicinity of the village. The circumstances we copy from Beer's "History of Clark County."

Ad White, a fugitive from Kentucky bearing the surname of his master, made his way to the place of rest for the oppressed, and thinking he was far enough away, had quietly settled down to work on the farm of Udney Hyde, near Mechanicsburg. His master had tracked him to the farm of Hyde, and obtained a warrant for his arrest at the United States Court in Cincinnati. Ben Churchill, with eight others, undertook his capture. Ad was at that time a powerful man, able and willing to whip his weight in wildcats, if necessary, and had expressed his determination never to return to slavery alive. Churchhill and Co. had been advised of this, and made their approaches to Hyde's house cautiously, informing some persons in Mechanicsburg of their business and suggesting to them to go out and see the fun, which invitation was promptly accepted. Ad slept in the loft of Hyde's house, to which access could only be obtained by means of a ladder, and one person only at a time.

Here he had provided himself with such articles of defence as a rifle, a double-barrelled shotgun, revolver, knife and axe, and had the steady nerve and skill to use them successfully if circumstances forced him to. Churchhill and party arrived at Hyde's and found the game in his retreat. They parleyed with him for some time, coaxed him to come down, ordered old man Hyde to go up and bring him out, deputized the men who followed them to go up, but all declined, telling them that five men ought to be able to take one. White finally proposed, in order to relieve Hyde of danger and compromise, if the five marshals would lay aside their arms and permit him to go into an adjoining field, and they could then overpower him, he would make no further resistance; but so long as they persisted in their advantage he would remain where he was and kill the first man who attempted to enter the loft.

Deputy-Marshall Elliott, of Cincinnati, was the first and only one to attempt to enter where White was, and as his body passed above the floor of the loft he held a shotgun before him, perhaps to protect himself, but particularly to scare White. But White was not to be scared that way. He meant that he said when he warned them to let him alone, and quick as thought, the sharp crack of a rifle rang out on the air, and Elliott dropped to the floor, not filled, but saved by his gun, the ball having struck the barrel, and thus prevent another tragedy in the slavehunter's path. This was the only effort made to dislodge White and after consultation they left for Urbana, going thence to Cincinnati. The gentlemen who had followed them out to Hyde's rallied them considerably on their failure, and in all probability were not very choice in their English to express their opinions of "slave-hunters".

Chagrined and mortified by their failure, and smarting under the sharp railleries of the bystanders, Churchill and Elliott made their report to the court at Cincinnati and made oath that Arzo L. Mann, Charles Taylor, David Tullis and Udney Hyde had interfered and prevented the capture of the negro White, and refused to assist when called upon. Warrants were issued for their arrest and a posse of fourteen, headed by Churchill and Elliott, went to Mechanicsburg and took them into custody. The men were prominent in the community, and their arrest created intense excitement.

Parties followed the marshals, expecting them to go to Urbana to board the cars for Cincinnati, but they left the main road, striking through the country, their actions creating additional excitement, causing suspicion of abduction. A party went at once to Urbana and obtained from Judge S. V. Baldwin a write of habeas corpus, commanding the marshals to bring their prisoners just across the county line, at Catawba, when the two parties dined together. In the meantime Judge Ichabod Corwin and Hon. J. C. Brand went to Springfield with a copy of the writ, and started Sheriff John E. Layton of Clark County and his deputy to intercept them at South Charleston. They reached there just as the marshals passed through, and overtook them half a mile beyond the town. In attempting the serve the writ, Layton was assaulted by Elliott with a slung-shot, furiously and brutally beaten to the ground, receiving injuries from which he never fully recovered. Layton's deputy, Compton was shot at several times, but escaped unhurt, and when he saw his superior stricken down and helpless, he went to him and permitted the marshals to resume their journey. Sheriff Clark and his party came up soon after and Sheriff Layton was borne back to South Charleston in a dying condition it was supposed, but a powerful constitution withstood the tremendous shock, although his health was never fully restored.

The assault on Sheriff Layton was at once telegraphed to Springfield and other points, causing intense excitement and arousing great indignation. Parties were organized and the capture of the marshals undertaken in earnest. Their track now lay through Green county. Sheriff Lewis was telegraphed for, and joined the party. On the following morning near the village of Lumberton, in Greene County, the State officers, headed by Sheriff Lewis, overtook the marshals, who surrendered without resistance. The prisoners were taken to Urbana before Judge Baldwin, and released, as no one appeared to show why they were arrested, or should be detained.

The United States marshals were all arrested at Springfield on their way to Urbana, for assault with intent to kill and, being unable to furnish security, were lodged in jail over night. James S. Christie was justice of peace at the time, and issued the warrants for the arrest of the marshals; the excitement was so great that the examination was held in the old court-house, which proved too small for the crowd. Mr. Christie was one of those who were obliged to attend at Cincinnati. The marshals again returned to Cincinnati and procured warrants for the arrest of four persons released upon habeas corpus, together with a large number of the citizens of Mechanicsburg, Urbana, Springfield and Xenia, who participated in the capture of the marshals.

In Champaign County the feeling against the enforcement of this feature of the fugitive slave law had become so intense that the officers serving the warrants were in danger of violence. Ministers of the gospel and many of the best and most responsible citizens of Urbana said to Judge Baldwin, Judge Corwin, Judge Brand and Sheriff Clark, on the day of the arrest "If you do not want to go, say the word, and we will protect you," feeling that the conflict was inevitable, and might as well be precipitated at that time. These men, however, counselled moderation and were ready and willing to suffer the inconvenience, expense and harassment of prosecution for the sake of testing this feature of the slave-driver's law, and also in hope and belief that it would make it more odious and secure its only repeal or change.

The cases of Udney Hyde and Hon. J. C. Brand were selected as test cases representing the two feature, that of Hyde for refusing to assist in the arrest of a fugitive slave, and that of Brand for interference with a United States officer in the discharge of duty. The district attorney was assisted by able counsel, and the most eminent lawyers of the States were secured to conduct the defence, when, after a long and stormy trial, the jury failed to make a verdict. The contest had now lasted nearly or quite a year, and all parties were becoming tired of it. The patriotism actuating both sides, though being a different character and order, was entirely exhausted, and the glory to be obtained would now be left for others yet to follow.

The Kentucky gentleman who had stirred up all this racket in his effort to get possession of his $1,000 in human flesh and blood now stepped to the front and proposed to settle trouble if he could have $1,000 for his Ad White, and the costs in all cases paid. This proposition was readily aceded to, the money paid and the case all nolled by District Attorney Matthews. The deed of Ad White was made in regular form by his Kentucky owner, and now forms one of the curious and interesting features of the probate court records for Champaign county.

Thus ended one of the great conflicts in the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, which did much towards crystallizing public sentiment against the extension of slavery. These scenes transpired in 1857, and nearly all the prominent actors have passed away. Ad White was notified of his freedom, and at once returned to Mechanicsburg, where, in 1881, he was still residing, borne down by hard work and age, but ever cherishing the memory of those who gave him shelter and protection when fleeing from oppression and seeking freedom.

Here is a modern account of the story (not nearly as dramatic as Howe's):

Addison White
Birth: 1822
Death: 1885
Runaway Slave. In 1850 the United States Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed US Marshals to recapture slaves who had fled to free states and return them to their owners. White was the slave of a powerful Kentucky farmer. In 1856 he ran away, seeking temporary shelter at an Underground Railroad stop in Mechanicsburg, Ohio. He stayed longer than planned at the home of abolitionist Udney Hyde in order to help his protector recover from a leg injury. In April of 1857, his owner along with US Marshals arrived in Mechanicsburg to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law by capturing and returning the slave back to Kentucky. Residents of Mechanicsburg rallied to protect White by using pitchforks and shovels to drive the Marshals and the slave owner from their town. This incident set off a nationwide legal and political battle that led to the arrest, on charges of violating the Fugitive Slave Law, of those citizens who led the revolt against the Marshals and the arrest of the US Marshals on charges of assault with the intent to kill when a local sheriff was shot while trying to retrieve those earlier arrested by the Marshals. The ensuing trial set up what was regarded as a test case on the legality of the Fugitive Slave Law. The legal proceedings lasted for about a year with the jury failing to reach a verdict. With the trial's outcome uncertain the slave owner offered to drop all charges if someone would purchase White's freedom. Citizens of Mechanicsburg raised the $1,000 needed to provide the runaway slave with his long sought after freedom. During the Civil War, he served with the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, before returning to Mechanicsburg where he worked at the city's street department. Although the settlement prevented any legal precedent to be set, the nationwide publicity given to the courageous efforts of White and the citizens of Ohio helped strengthen public sentiment against the expansion of slavery. Considered by many historians as the most important incident in the history of the Underground Railroad, the courageous story of this man and those who helped him gain freedom is presented in the play "Freedom Bound".