Case Name: Crease v. Negro Parker
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1808-07
Citations: 1 Cranch 506
Docket Number: 
Parties: Crease v. Negro Parker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Crease v. Negro Parker.
Money advanced to a slave to enable him to purchase his freedom, cannot be recovered of him after his emancipation, although he acknowledge the debt after suit brought.
This cause was tried at November term, 1807, [ante, 448,] when a special verdict was found. It was an action brought against a free negro for money lent to him while a slave, to enable him to purchase his freedom.
The verdict was in these words: — “ We of the jury find that the sum stated in the déclaration was, previous to the defendant’s emancipation from slavery, advanced by plaintiff to defendant who was then a slave, and who was manumitted in due form of law on the 30th of March, 1803. The said money was so advanced for the purpose of enabling defendant to purchase his freedom, and defendant did, in thé month of November, 1806, subsequent to the commencement of this suit, acknowledge to a certain James Harris, that he, the defendant, was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of ¿£24, and would be able to pay it by the time a judgment was rendered against him. Therefore we find for the plaintiff $84 damages, should the law be in his favor. Should it not, we find for the defendant.”
The case was argued by Mr. Youngs, for the plaintiff,
who cited Esp. N. P. 163 ; and by
Mr. H. Herbert and Mr. Swann, for the defendant,
who cited Co. Lit. 118, 119 (b) ; Law of Virginia of 17th December, 1792, § 36, p. 191; Esp. N. P. 158, and 2 Esp. Cases, 628.

Opinion:
The Cotjet gave judgment for the defendant upon the special verdict.
Cranch, C. J.,
was of opinion that the judgment could not be given for the plaintiff on this verdict, but was rather inclined to think that there ought to be a venire de novo, as the jury had found an acknowledgment which would be evidence of an express promise.