Case ID: dc_2/html/0637-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Semmes v. Sherburne.
    If tbe plaintiff’s slave be hired to tbe defendant in the District of Columbia, who carries her to New Hampshire without tbe consent or authority of tbe plaintiff, by means whereof she is lost to tbe plaintiff, be may, in trover, recover tbe value of the slave. But if the plaintiff assented to the defendant’s taking tbe slave to New England either before or after be took her, and she was lost without any negligence or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
    In trover for a slave, tbe plaintiff cannot recover if be has obtained judgment against the defendant in a previous suit for the hire of the slave to a period subsequent to tbe commencement of tbe action of trover; but if, in making his claim for tbe hire of the slave, be did not mean to charge for tbe hire to a period later than tbe commencement of the action of trover, then such mistaken claim and the judgment thereon are not conclusive evidence against the plaintiff in the action of trove¡r.
    Trover for a slave. This cause having come on to trial again upon the amended pleadings, [ante, 534.]
    The Court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant, without the consent or authority of the plaintiff carried his female slave away to N. Hampshire and did not bring her back again and return her to the plaintiff, and that by reason of her being so carried away, the plaintiff has lost her, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the slave. But at the prayer of the defendant, further instructed the jury that if they should find from the evidence that the plaintiff had claimed and recovered judgment against the defendant for the hire of the slave up to a time subsequent to the institution of this suit, such claim and judgment are conclusive evidence of a waiver, by the plaintiff, of any unlawful conversion by the defendant prior to the commencement of this suit, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action.
    But if the plaintiff, in making his claim for the hire of the slave, upon which he had recovered judgment, did not mean to charge for the hire of the slave to a period later than the commencement of this suit, then such mistaken claim so made by the plaintiff and the judgment thereon, are not conclusive against the plaintiff in this action.
    
      Mr. Key and Mr. Morfit, for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. Coxe, for the defendant.
   The Court

further instructed the jury, at the prayer of the defendant, that if they should find from the evidence that the plaintiff assented to the taking of the slave to New England, either before or after the defendant took her, and that such slave was lost without any negligence or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $360, and judgment.