Case ID: serg-rawl_4/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth against Hambright.
    Wednesday, May 20.
    A negro, or mulatto servant, who binds himself in another state, to serve his master until the age of 28 years in consideration of manumis* sion, and is brought into Pennsylvania to reside, cannot be removed out of the state without his consent; although the indenture contain a covenant to serve his master in Pennsylvania or any other state; such a covenant is void. Nor can his master imprison him, in order to compel his consent.
    
      A HABEAS CORPUS having issued to the defendant, who was jailor of Lancaster, to bring up the body of negro Tom, he returned, that he held him as the agent of Isaac Law his master, by virtue of an indenture made the 27th August, 1805.
    This indenture recited, that Law had manumitted Tom, whom he held as a slave in the state of New Jersey, and who was twelve years old in February, 1805; and that in consideration of manumission, Tom had, with the approbation of two justices of the peace of Somerset county, New Jersey, (he having no parents in that state to consent to the binding or removal into Pennsylvania,) bound himself to Law to learn the occupation of a husbandman, and to dwell with and serve him from the date of the indenture, until the 4th February, 1821, in the state of Pennsylvania, or in any other state in which Law might reside.
    It was agreed, that Tom was sent to prison by bis máster, with an intent to keep him there until he should consent to go with him to the state of New Jersey, where he intended to reside.
    Hopkins,
    for the negro, contended, that there was no law authorising the master to imprison his apprentice after the age of twenty-one years, nor to carry him out of the state without his consent. The language of the 3d section of the ait of 29th March, 1788, is perfectly plain, and positively prohibits the removal of any negro or mulatto slave or servant for a term of years, except in certain specified cases, out of this state, with an intention to change their place of abode or residence. "Whether the indenture was made in or out of the state is immaterial, because the law which permits negroes and mulattoes to be bound until the age of twenty-eight years, declares in express terms, that none shall be held to serve beyond that period by virtue of any indenture whatsoever, and declares in terms equally comprehensive and express, that no persons of this description, shall be taken out of "this state against their consent. If a construction be given to the law which authorises the master tó carry his servant into New Jersey, he is equally authorised to carry him to Georgia or New Orleans, and thus entirely to defeat the object of the legislature. In this case, the master can complain of no hardship, because the indenture was made with express reference to Pennsylvania, with the laws of which he must be supposed to have been acquainted, when he entered into the contract. It requires no argument to shew, that if the master cannot take away his servant without his consent, he cannot imprison him for the purpose of forcing him to consent.
    Buchanan,
    for the master, answered, that slaves had derived great advantage from the decision of this Court, that they might be bound out of this state, and brought into it, and compelled to serve until twenty-eight years of age ; and many had received freedom in consequence of it; but if masters for such breaches of the indenture as this, are put to an action of covenant, the humane views of the legislature, will be counteracted, by such an obstacle being thrown in the way of manumission. The case of negro Tom, does not come within the 3d section of act of 29th March, 1788. By the indenture into which he entered, in consideration of the highest benefit that could be conferred upon him, he expressly agreed to serve his master in Pennsylvania, or in any other state in which he should reside, and it surely never could have been intended to put it in the power of a slave, who had received his freedom in another state, in consequence of an agreement to serve his master for a limited term, to violate the express stipulations of his contract. If an inhabitant of Neiv 
      
      Jersey should bring into this state a servant bound to serve until the age of twenty-eight years, the doctrine now contended for, would deny him the privilege, after a short residence here, of carrying him back, which would be great injustice. The case of The Commonwealth v. Edwards,  has decided, that a master cannot remove his apprentice .out of the state in which the indenture was executed, unless the indenture give him such power. The necessary inference is, that if the indenture contain such a power he may do so. The leading object of the legislature in the enactment of the abolition act of 1st March, 1780, was to secure the freedom of persons born within the state, who otherwise would have been slaves. This is manifest from the 3d section of that act. It is evident, it was not intended to put servants born within the state, who were by that law bound to serve till twenty-eight years of age, on the same footing with those introduced from other states i for the 4th section secures to the first the same freedom dues, and privileges, which attached to servants who were bound to serve for four years prior to that act; but no provision of that kind is made in favour of servants bound for the same period,- and brought from other states ; which affords an inference, that the termination of their period of service out of the state, was contemplated in some instances, and that they were not viewed in the same light. .
    
      
      
         Purd. Dig. 480.
      
    
    
      
      
         Resp v. Gaoler of Phil. 1 Yeates, 368.
    
    
      
      
         6 Binn. 202.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

Negro Tom, being a slave resident in the state of New Jersey, was purchased by Isaac Law, of Lancaster county in Pennsylvania, and manumitted at the age of 12 years, in consideration of which the said Tom bound himself to the said Isaac Law, with the approbation of two justices of the peace óf New Jersey, (having no parents living there,) as an apprentice to learn the occupation of an husbandman, and to serve the said Isaac Law, or his assigns, either in Pennsylvania or any other state, until the 4th February, 1821, at which time the said Tom will be of the age of 28 years. Such an indenture, between freemen, could hardly be supported, because it would not be for the benefit of the infant; but it is very much for the benefit of an infant slave, who receives from his master, the most valuable of all considerations, freedom, and therefore ought to be supported. Accordingly we find, that in our act for the gradual abolition of slavery, sections 12 and. 13, such contracts are expressly recognised. Covenants of personal servitude or apprenticeship between negroes or mulattoes under the age of 31, and their masters, are permitted, provided, that the servitude shall not continue longer than the age of 28 years. The same act authorises servitude till the age of 28, in the case of children of slaves who received, freedom by virtue of that act. But it was found, that this temporary servitude was sometimes productive of great oppression ; the servants being removed from the state of Pennsylvania to other states, where the laws did not afford them equal protection. In order to prevent this mischief, it was enacted, by the act of 29th March, 1788, sect. 3, that no negfp or mulatto servant for a term of years, shall be removed out of the state with the design, that the place of abode or residence of such servant shall thereby be altered, without his consent, if of full age, testified upon a private examination before two justices of the peace of the city or county in which he shall reside, or if under full age, without his consent testified as aforesaid, and also the consent of his parents, if he have any, testified in manner aforesaid, of which the said justices, or one of them, shall make a record, &c.

The meaning of this act is too clearly expressed, to admit of a doubt. It extends to all negro or mulatto servants for years, whether bound within the state or without. Whoever brings a servant of that kind within this state, for the purpose of permanent residence, is bound by the law, and any covenant in the indenture, contrary to the law, must be considered .as void. Now it appears, by the confession of Isaac Law, that Tom is imprisoned by his order, and that he intends to continue the imprisonment until Tom shall consent to go with him to the state of Nexu Jersey, to which he is about to remove for the purpose of residing there. To carry the negro there, against his consent, is directly contrary to law, and to imprison him for the purpose of compelling his assent, is equally unlawful. I am, therefore, of opinion, that Tom should be discharged from prison, and delivered to his master, who must take care to make no attempt to carry him out of the state, against his consent.

Prisoner discharged,