The New York herald., 1871-03-08
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Payment Of Notes Given for Slaves Prior to
Emancipation.

Enyment Oh NOtes Given Tor slaves PrIOr TO
Emancipation.
WASHINGTON, March Z, 1871.
No. loO L. F. Giness Us. william L. Cd,npoeu--
Error to the Circuit Court for the district Lous-
ana. This was an action on promissory note exc
cutad at New Orleans in April, 1861, payable two
years after in the city to the OF The plain
tin in error, who was the endorser. The considera-
ron OF the note was the price OF slaves Sold to the
maker q brother of the endorser. The note was not
presented at the place Of payment at maturity,
Campbell the holder. then being q resi-
dent of the parish oil st Helena and cut of
access TO New Orleans by reasons OF the exist
ence ofthe war judgment was for the holder, and
the was brought here, the palntn III error con-
tendng-hrst, that the want OF presentment ana
notice OF the noe. protest and notlce OF protest Is
ineXcusaoic. lnasmuch as campbell had only to
come forward ald acknowledge his allegiance to
the government by lis invitation after the capture
OF New Orleans, and was sale in dong so; second.
the statute OF prescription IN Louisiana barred his
right OF action on the note the parties being an
not entitled u The benefit or the act or June.
1884, which was passed for the protection OF North
ern creditors, in respect OF their debts and debtors
within the rebel lines 1t is argued Ia the third
place. that the consideration or the note has failed
and trat unaer the Constitution % of Louisiana
the action could not be sustained In
the state courts. The defendant IN error is
charged with lrst having ascertained that the Dis
trict Judge held views favorable TO his case, and
with then having taken up his residence In MIsss-
federal courts for Louisiana. The defendant In
error maintains that he was prevented by actual
military force from presenting the note at maturity
that his failure to the protes: of the note,
&c, is excused ON the same ground ne insists that
the statute OF prescription does not bar his action
ON the question TO The consideration OF The note
It Is said tnat 1t was legal at the time, and le-
gality cannot by any er posi- Jacto LEGISLATION or
! decision be impressed upon it, The abolilion
i OF slavery. or OF the principle CT tue law
OF slavery will not affect contracts Tor slaves made
before the date OF abolition. X late case III Great
4 b.
/ u. =, s62):-An Englshman, who purchased
slaves IN Brazl, was compelled to pay the price by
! the courts OF England Louisiana could net Impair
the obligation of this contract, made III 1861, di-
recty nor consequently bl legislation or decision
Slavery was lawful though eXorbitant and transl-
| tory state III 1851 II the parties mad appehended
interference from legislation or Law they would
meeting the exact case. Even a general and
ordinary warranty does not apply to acts ct port
applies only TO pre-existing facts and
liabilities. The cases in the English courts ana III
the courts OF me United states snow tnat slaves are
legally IN The states where slavery was recognized.
and that the courts OF tue United States Will enforce
contracts made for The sale OF slaves in states
where slavery by iaw and the courts OF Great
Britain Will grant redress for loss TO such property
under similar conditions. The rights OF the party
here must be decided by the law OF 1o6l, and not
the law oil 1868 The law Of the place Of making
the contract at the time was made enters into ana
forms part OF the conlract ana an INJURIOUS aera-
ton OF those laws lmpairs It's obligation.
No. 1o1. william White u.s. John Hart and ". D.
DariS-Error to the Supreme Court OF Georgia.
This was also an action on rromissory note dated
February, 1859, the consideration OF which was
slave property. The defendants below pleaded to
the jurisdiction Of the Court the ground that the
institution OF slavery dld not exist III Georgia and
| the Court was prohibited 10 exercise jurisdiction.
| The plea was sustained aud the Judgne ent was Tor
the deie iendants. The holder oil the note brings the
case here and special and elaborate brief Is made
on the right to enforce by suit notes given on the
sale OF prior TO emancipation by p. Philips,
for the plaintiff in error. The defendants III error
do not appear here