The Washington union., 1857-05-26
The supreme Court of the United states.
THE DRED SCOTT CASE
The O@cial RPort.


souri,
IL was an action of trcspass y arms Instituted in the
circuit court by Scott against Sandford.
Prior 10 the institution of the present suit, action
brought by Scott for his freedom in the circuit court
of St. Louis county, State cour where there was YER
dict and Judgment in his favor. On writ OF error TO
the supreme court of the State the Judgment below
reversed and the remanded to the circuit court,
where it was continued to await the decision of the
in question
The declaration of Scott contained three counts one
that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff one, that he
had assaulted Harriet Scott his wife and one that he
had assaulted Ez, Scott and Lizzie Scott his children
sandford appeared, and filed the following plea;
DRIED ScoT
ps Paoa 10 The Jarisdcion Of ae Court.
April TERN, 1854.
And the said John f. A. Sandford, in his proper
person. and that this court ought not to have
take further cognznce of the action aforesaid because
he says that said of action and each and every of
them III any such have accrued to the said Dred Scot)
accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of
this court and exclusively within the jurisdiction OF
the courts of the State of Missouri for that to wit the
said plaintiff bred Scott is not citizen of the State OF
Missouri alleged in his declaration, because he
gro of African descent his ancestors of pure African
blood, and brought into this country and sold
negro slaves and this the said Sandord is ready to verify
Wherefore he prays Judgment whether this court can
or will take further cogniznce Of the action aforesaid
JOHN Il. A. SANDF0RD.
To this plea there was demurrer in the usual form,
which argued in April 1854, when the court gave
Judgment that the demurrer should be sustained.
In May 1854, the defendant in of agree
ment between counsel and with the leave of the court
pleaded in bar of the action
L. Not guilty.
q That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful
property of the defendant and SUCH the defendant
gently laid his hands upon him. and thereby had only
restrained him, the defendant had right to do.
g. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the
plaintiff in the second and third counts of the declaration
mentioned the defendant had to them only acted in
In the first of these pleas the plaintiff joined issue
and to the second and third filed replications alleging
that the defendant of his wrong and without the
cause in his second and third pleas alleged committed
the trespasses, &c.
The counsel then filed the following agreed statement
of facts, viz
In the year 1884 the plaintiff negro slave be-
longing to DR. Emerson, who surgeon in the army
of the United States In that year. 1884, said Dr. Emer
took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the
military post at Rock Island in the State of Illinois, and
held him there slave until the month of April OF
May, 1886 At the time last mentioned said DR.. Emer-
removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock
Island to the military post at Fort Smelling situate
the west bank OF the Mississippi river, in the Territory
known as Upper Louisiana acquired by the United States
of France, and situate north of the latitude of thrtysix
degrees thirty minutes north and north of the State of
Missouri. Said DR.. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery
at said Fort Smelling from said last mentioned date until
the year 1888.
In the year 1885 Harriet who is named in the second
count of the plaintiff declaration the negro slave of
Major Taaferro, who belonged to the army of the United
States In that year. 1885, said Major Taliacrro took
said Harriet to said Fort Smelling military post stua-
ted hereinbefore stated and kept her there slave
until the year 1885, and then sold and delivered her
slave at said Fort Smelling unto the said DR. Emerson
hereinbefore named Said DR. Emerson held said Harriet
in slavery at said Fort Smelling until the year 1888
In the year 1886 the plaintiff and said Harriet at said
Fort Snelling with the consent of said DR. Emerson who
then claimed to be their master and owner ntermared
and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and
Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff decara
tion the fruit of that marriage Eliza about four
teen years DID, and born board the steamboat Clip
sey north of the north line of the State of Missouri and
upon the river Mississippi Lizzie is about years
old, and was born in the State of Missouri at the military
post called Jefferson Barracks
In the year 1888 said Dr. Emerson removed the plain
tiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from
said Fort Smelling to the State of Missouri where they
have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit said Dr. Ener-
son sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet Eliza
and Lizzie to the defendant slaves and the defendant
has since claimed to hold them and each of them as
slaves.
At the times mentioned in the plaintiffs declaration
the defendant claiming to be aforesaid laid his
hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet Eliza and Lizzie, and
imprisoned them, doing in this respect however
than what he might lawfully do if they of right his
slaves at such times.
Further proof may be given the trial for either party
1t agreed that Dred Scott brought suit his freedom
in the circuit court of ST. Louis county that there was
verdict and judgment in his favor that, on writ Of
error to the Supreme Court the judgment below
ycrsed and the eancd to the circuit court where
1t has been continued to await the decision Of this
In May, 1884 the went before jury who found
the following verdict viz to the first issue oined
In this case of the jury find the defendant guilty
and to the issue secondly above joined we of the Jury
find that before and at the time when, &c. in the first
count mentioned the said Drcd Scott negro slave
the lawful property of the defendant and as to the issue
thirdly above joined we the jury find that before and
at the time when &C., in the second and third counts
mentioned the said Harriet wife of said Drcd Scott and
Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said bred Scott
were negro slaves the lawful property of the defend
ant"
Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the defendant
After an Intellectual motion for trial. the plain
tiff filed the following bill of exceptions:
On the trial of this by the jury the plaintiff to
maintain the issues his part read to the jury the fol-
lowing agreed statement of facts see agreement aboye
No further testimony given to jury by either party
jury the following instruction. viz
That upon the facts agreed to by the parties they
ought to find for the plaintiff The court refused to give
such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff such re-
fusal, then and there duly excepted"
The court then gave the following instruction to the
jury, on motion of the defendant:
The jury instructed that, upon the facts in this
case, the law is with the defendant The plaintiff ex
cepted to this instruction.
Upon these exceptions the came up to this court
1t was argued at December term 1856 and ordered to
be reargucd at the present term
II was argued by Mr.. Blair and Mr. g. r Curtis
for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Geyer and Mr. John
son for the defendant In
The reporter regrets that want Of will not allow
-. A. IT, H.. .uf II. =