The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1869-12-18

A decision was rendered Dy
Justice Wyley as the organ of the
Court in the interesting case of r.
y. Sandidge VS.. j. s. Sanderson,
and j. s. Sanderson VS., II. s. San
didge, cnmulated and appeal
ed from the parish of Bossier, a
controversy involving o contract
for land and slaves as effected by
the war. ,F..
We have only room for a brief
extract of the points of the con-
troversy, the decision being quite
lengthy, Sandidge. in 1858, sold
to Sanderson land, slaves and
other property for $4,000, the
slaves being estimated estimated
at half the amount. Sanderson
paid $4,000 cash and gave four
prOmissory notes of $4,000 each
for the balance, bearing interest
and secured by mortgage on the
land and slaves. ALI said notes
were paid subsequently, except
the last, which fell due LIST May,
1862, which Is in litigation. Upon
it Sandidge sued out an order of
seizure and sale, and Sanderson
enjoined on various grounds, the
most serious OF which ore the al
legged failure of consideration by
reason of emancipation and the
allegation ofplaintiff in injunction,
Sanderson, that he has already
more than paid for all the proper
ty, except the slaves, and that to
force payment for the sale of per-
sons whould be in contravention
of article 128 of the Constitution
of this State.
Judge Wyley says: "If that
note had been for slaves, pure and
simple, there would be no question
that the obligation would be con-
sidered discharged, or at least
could not be enforced by reason
of emancipation and article 128 of
the Constitution;" and after an
elaborate discussion as to the eff,
fects of emancipation upon slave
contracts generally he concludes
his decision as follows:
1--WE deem it useless to discuss
the question whether emancipa
ton discharged obligations fol
slaves or not. Article 12S of the
Constitution prohibits the courts
of this State from enforcing them
The main question is, how shall
we apply the prohibitory clause o.
the Constitution to contracts Of
the character presented in this
case, where the consideration was
mixed, part slaves and part lane
and movables? Shall we refuse
the whole debt, or shall we only
refuse toenforce the part of th'
debit" 4s
1.-THE prOhibitory clause of tn,
Constitution should be construed
strictly-We can only refuse t.
euforce the slave part of the debt
The debt was originally half fol
slaves, and half for other proper
ty, The payments prior to tht
rebellion cannot fairly be imputed
that part of the debt for land anc
movables. We cannot presume
the parties intended to apply pay
ments to the amount of $4,000 Il
that part of the debt which wa,
only $4,000, The payments wer'
obviously made ia discharge o
the whole debt protaato. The re
naming note on which this suit il
based, therefore evidences a debt
the consideration of which wa,
half slaves and half land ans
moyables. We are consequent,
Ofopinion that the PLAINTIFF San
didge, should have judgment
against the defendant, Sanderson
for half the amount of his de
mand, and that the mortgage
should be recognized and render
ed execntory.
1t is so ordered, the judgment
of the Lower Court deereeing t.
plaintiff, the full amount of his de
mand being avoided and reversed
Justices Howe and Taliaferrt
read separate opinions, concurrine
in the main with Justice Wyley