Case ID: johns_11/html/0068-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of Cæsar, a black man, against Peabody.
    ALBANY,
    Jan. 1814.
    Where a slave brought into this state was sold at a sheriff’s sale,under sifi.fa. against the estate of his master, and the purchaser, after-wards, sold him at private sale, it was held that the first sale was valid, but thesecond, being a voluntary sale, was void, as against the act. (1 JV. B. L. .201.)
    A MOTION was made for a mandamus in this cause, directed to I. Peabody, commanding him to manumit and set free Casar, a black man, held by him as a slave. It appeared that Casar was brought into this state, about nine years ago, from Virginia, by one Hallam, as his slave, and the requisite certificate obtained and filed, according to the 4th section of the act passed the 8th of April, 1801. (Sess. 24. c. 188. 1 N. R. L. 201.)
    A judgment was, afterwards, obtained against Hallam, and a fi.fa. issued thereon, under which Casar was sold at the sheriff’s sale, to one Perkins, who afterwards sold him, at private sale, to Peabody, who now holds him as a slave.
    It was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that the sale by Perkins to Peabody was void, and the slave, under the act, was free, (sess. 24. c. 188. s. 5.) that then a peremptory mandamus should issue.
   Per Curiam.

According to the decision of this court, in Sable v. Hitchcock, (2 Johns. Cases, 79.) the sale of the slave on the execution was valid; but the subsequent sale by the purchaser to Peabody, was contrary to the act, being a voluntary sale by the master of a slave, imported or brought into the state. That sale was, therefore, void; and, according to the agreement of the parties, a peremptory mandamus must issue.

Rule granted.