Source: http://elektratig.blogspot.com/2007/02/julia-v-mckinney-i-owners-plan-to.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:08:45+00:00

Document:
In Julia v. McKinney, 3 Mo. 270, 1833 WL 3254 (1833), the Supreme Court of Missouri once again confronted the issue whether it should declare a slave free based upon the laws of a free territory or state. The court reaffirmed its holdings in Winny v. Whitesides (1824), Merry v. Tiffin (1827) and Milly v. Smith (1829), in which it held that a slave who resided in a free territory or state should be declared free based upon foreign law. Julia is particularly noteworthy because the court pointedly rejected an opportunity to limit its earlier decisions in a way that would have been legally plausible and highly advantageous to slaveholders.
On about December 1, 1829, Mrs. Carrington “sent Julia to Louisiana, Missouri, a distance of about thirty miles, and hired her out” there. Julia became sick, and Mrs. Carrington had her return to Pike County, Illinois. When Julia recovered, Mrs. Carrington sent her to St. Louis, where she was sold to S. McKinney.
The jury returned a verdict against Julia, and the Circuit Court entered judgment against her. Julia then appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
In the next post, we shall examine how the court analyzed and resolved the issues.
Scott v. Emerson IV: "It Is Humiliating"
Scott v. Emerson III: "The Act is the Thing"
"Go After the Head of the Snake"
John Paul Vann Says "Ouch!"
Did Ulysses Grant Own Julia's Slaves?
God, I Love the Post!
Is Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional?
Milly v. Smith II: A Pyrrhic Victory?
Merry v. Tiffin II: "This man was not property"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.