Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-05-16
Fanny. Nav s,

LII. cRIrcBFIELp, REPORTER.
FRIpAY, May 8.
John Anderson VS.. Henry Poindexter and others.
Error to the District Court of Clermont county.
BowEN, j., delivered the opinion of the Court
holding
/. That neither Ohio nor Kentucky can demand
an abrogation of the Constitution and municipal
laws Of the other, as n matter of comfy and if a
person, claimed as a slave in Kentucky, comes in
10 Ohio by the direction or consent of his owner,
even for a temporary business purpose, the con-
stitution and laws Of Ohio operate on the condition
of such person and effect his immediate emancipa-
ton.
2. When a person, held in slavery by the NUM-
cipal law of the State in which he lives, once be.
comes free by virtue of the law of another country
or State, into which he goes by the consent of his
owner, it is not in the power of the latter ever to
reduce him again to his former condition OF servi
tude, under any law which this court can recog
nize as valid.
3. By laws Of Kentucky, n person who is held
and treated MS a slave, has no capacity to make
any contract whatever and IrOmisory notes given
TO his master by himself and surities for him, in
the purchase OF his freedom. are illegal and void,
as to both principal and surities.
Judge Bowen's opinion is not yet ready for
publication, but will appear in the next volume Of
Reports. which will be out in July.l
BARELY, Oh. j., dissenting from some of the
views expressed in the opinion Of the majority OF
NV SboAt ~ 10 ~ ~ " nv SibNbdo W VIZ NiShp
based his conclusions in the case upon the follow
ing points.
LIST. That although the removal Of a negro slave
from Kentucky into Ohio, for the purpose Of resi-
dence or change of domicil, has the effect to eman-
cipate the slave, yet by the comfy of nations, and
the still higher obligations resting on the people of
the several states CT the American Union, in the
free commercial and social intercourse with each
other, authorized by the constitution of the United
States, a negro held rs a slave in Kentucky does
not haapnAa Iraa lv stn,.ly n, hrn,uh ~,
on a journey with, or by permission of, his master.
or. as in this case, by being sent on an errand into
Ohio, and returning Immediately into Kentucky;
and this comfy between states and nations cannot
be construed to infringe the fundamental and local
law of domicil Of either state.
I'd. That the contract in this case, being, like
every other contract, governed by the Ter loci and
having been made in Kentucky, where. by the
local law as expounded bv the courts of that
State. a slave does not become free by a simple
sojourn in uiRere in u free State, could not have
been without consideration. on the ground that
Poindexter was free at the time he gave the note.
On the other points, to wit. LIST. That Puin'
dexter, under the laws of Kentucky, being q slave,
had no legal capacity to make q contract with his
master; and I'd. That the mere rxecutory promise
of Anderson to set Poindexter free at n future
period, being wholly void by the laws of Kentucky
was not a legal ana valuable consideration for the
notes. the Chief Justice cdncurred with the major.
iy of the Court in the judgement for the defend
ants.
JUDGE BRIHKERuoFF's OPINION.
BRINKERBoFF J.-For the reason that the prin
ciples involved in this case are Of great moment
and are now regarded with general and peculiai
interest, | will depart from the ordinary usage Of
the Court rs briefly to state separately the grounds
on which | place my concur ence in the judgement
we are about to enter.
The case made in the pleading and proof is this:
Henry Poindexter, held as a slave in Kentucky.
executed, together with his co-defendants as surf.
ties, to the plaintiff, Anderson, who claimed n le-
gal right to hold him.. the promisory note sued on
in this State; in consideration of which note, and
others, the plaintiff agreed to, and did release
Poindexier from the slavery in which he was held,
and promising to give him his free papers, or
deed Of Emancipation, so soon as this note, and
other notes given at the same time and for the
same consideration, should be fully paid. Before
the giving of !hese notes, Poindexter, with the
knowledge and consent, and sometimes by direc.
ton of Anderson, had, in several instances, come
into the State of Ohio, and after remaining a short
time in doing the errands ON which he was sent,
had voluntarily, but probably in ignorance of his
rights, returned into Kentucky and resumed his
residence with Anderson. After the giving of the
notes. Poindexter labored n while for Anderson
for wages, and then took up hs residence 10 Ohio.
The case in the Common Pleas was submitted
20 the Court for trial, and a judgement was render
ed for the defendants. The plaintiff then appeal.
ed to the District Court, which also gave judge
nent for the defendants. And to reverse that
judgement, this petition in error is prosecuted.
Two questions properly arise in this case:
!. II is contended for the plaintiff that the case
by the comfy OF nations and states, is to be deter
mined by Ter loci c0ntrdctus. and that by the laws
of Kentucky, where the note sued on was execut-
ed, is was a valid note.
Now granting for the sake of argument, what /
do not admit, but what on the contrary. l deny,
that the Ter loci is TO decide the validity of this
note, how then stands the case?
Under tie la%s Of Kentucky, a slave is incapa.
BILE of contracting. lie can hold no property
He can acquire no rights, His natural domestic
relations even are ignored. lie has not q right IL
the child he has begotten, to nurture it, nor To the
wife he has chosen and cherished, to protect her.
According to the theory Of those laws. the slave
belongs to the master as property, and descends to
his heirs as real estate. No contract can increase
the liabilities Of The one. or the power Of the other
A contract Of emancipation imparts to the slave nc
legal right, and imposes on the master no legal
obligation. 1t is simply nugatory and void. The
promise OF the slave to pay money iii consideration
Of such a contract, is null. Being null when made
no subsequent act of the emancipation on the par
Of .he master, can impart to 1t any new fOice. Il
thus results logically frum the theory of the slave
code Of Kentucky, that the note which the plaintiff
now seeks to enforce here was invalid there. And
moreover, by chapter 90, article 8, OF the revised
Statutes of that State, and which seems to be still
in force, emancipation, except by deed, or last will
aud testament, executed in conformity to its pro
visions. is prohibited. So that under the legisla
tion Of Kentucky, Poindexter has never yet beer
legally emsncipated and thereby rendered compe
tent contract.
Q. Bot, were it other wise, could this note be en-
forced by judicial procedure in Ohio? By The
laws Of nature, all persons are free. No human
being is born, or can be born, a slave. The laws
by q stretch Of courtesy so called. of particular
countries or States. may subject certain persons to
Be held end treated as the transferable instrur