Case Name: Haney vs. Waddle
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1815-05
Citations: 3 H. & J. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: Haney vs. Waddle.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
Haney vs. Waddle.
>\ ii, Sxa '-(ilfioncrr ilomdy (¡¡Vurt This was a peTvY» !‘t íVí'.'-íien,. the isiai Ye pei"tif>i¿er, úv.w cg-l,siy';r.->, ) v V. ií'.KüJ», VÍiO gH'in'C-d that ¿{¡fol Mar Oil Yro Enrothc’ - té' ¡íir defoiiíSatiíc (hot- appe'kmí,) witbe a Seiko: t«, ¡ni’.' Y.nt Tig J/aty/n cont-iy hi «bk sirte, where Im ¡/«YicsC mid sent it i;y the petitioner, whe was Yu- W.nr; o.: fY-ngY" whs're he ns if bon» stEl! raised, ansi by vitóle ?a who deíYe-uid to (he w tine.so to lY- ciíy cf ¿Julfimare, v- Y-'i-i1 Ye. wiinc-to, reskYil., rartretoEe in íl?e shiaiÜ! to’ Y"tpJO, and shortly after tlm r,aid latter vnv wníúnt, YY if.rrij- contained st reyse5» SiY the whiles,« vuwld keep Ye ¡.. Yiwr ¿miíi he,, John Swey, orives brother Snnv,ei YY iyn shouid arrive u> JkJf'onorys iiuS ii also cranT, ihsi Yin peiiAnnet’was i«e gt'.ipí-i'íy of bis said brother, who 7vf.r tUstírr age, rad roar he wtc iho guardian of his said! g.-otoer. ‘Tha; viTonl'n«'Iy the witmra; did keep ¡he netivitiunr in his service from that tin<e for shorn two months >nd art half, when the defendant arrived in Baltimore, from Ym-rt/to c.otnsiy, where, he war. bound in Í&0.8 by his fa™ they, % -.cien years, to lepra the tiiifctoeos of a. pilot, arid vr.iTe, be then lived. 'Chai the defendant then eYk-.d oa ¿be «. kara.-.,, and received the birr fur the ¡imp the petition» «r had been with ibe witness. ‘Thai the defendant left the ¡níítfknei with /¿cbm Yury, Kir brosher-to-Tvi» who ceYík-íi to itotobtoore, and wise some short time afterwards hired '-be pctoiKinei- is Jooeph ñmiif, list. captain and owiiof the J/h-ymta/. :a packet, which sidled bi-Uveen Jll?.xfaiUrkt ami f/aii/m.nri’^ that the falls ¡.at kei was; ¡icenseá :Y, ¡h- pur* of Jiiex'indria, and the capias» and owner renkto.d and lived in jMezandria, That wueneiime after the ’:>ei;7.;mc-r was so hired io 1/evüí, he irief with ihe sk-fea - daui at. Halñmofe, who agreed that he. ffeviit, «Hjcbt keen Sic petitioner to hie hire n,Y rorticc octi! ihe lpü¡ of Ye-camber S8íU, asid longer ¡f Iso cítese,, Thai in cousenjiieuee toeraoi Yx,vk did Ireog! ‘he petitioner in ins service aYY She l‘/i,bu!r itocorrtoc-i' ¿8 Mí, when ixto-.y with bite in ids jgcYirf to ikiik'i/ti.vc,,, he desertoS and 'tut cv.ay iiam hti-n, ;.i.e8( sÍMT'üy afk-t tied ih¡¡; petiiioü soy bis iraeúoiu. The ¡g«:toóse.’ furiher jn-ovaJ. «sai ¡te wt's boru an» ¡csis-eJ iu .Áte sí.tíe of YiryíKtVy as;! was brought, into this state from tihe siaty of fYVyirwY.a file ¡msc. k creía i;s-lurc bxyY , , The defendant then proved, that the petitioner was horn the slave of the defendant’s father, and was given to the defendant by his fkther, who always has resided, and still resides, in the state of Virginia. That the defendant arrived at the age of 21 years on the 13th of December 1810, at which time his apprenticeship expired; and has since followed his business as a pilot in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, and was sometimes at Norfolk, sometimes at Alexandria^ sometimes at St. ñlarifs, and sometimes at Baltimore, just as his business called him; was an unmarried man, and had no fixed place of residence. He then prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they believed the aforegoing testimony, the petitioner was not entitled to, recover. But the Court, [Nicholson, Ch. J.] was of opinion, and so directed the jury, that if they believed that the petitioner was born and raised in the state of Virginia, and continued to reside there until the month of February 1810, that he was then sent by the defendant, or with his consent and approbation, to Baltimore, to be hired, that he was so hired and resided in Baltimore, and that the defendant himself was not a resident of this state, and did not move into this state for the purpose of residing here, that the circumstance of the defendant’s being under the age of 21 years could not operate against the petitioner. That a minor had no other authority to import slaves into this state than an adult, and that neither the one nor the other had such authority, except in the special cases provided for in the several acts of assembly of this state, none of which embraced this ease. The court therefore, refused the defendant’s prayer. The defendant excepted;. t\rid the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court, where the case was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J„ by
Si iHíüilí'l £!'•{ .’Iy iiki ;u*í Yv ts’Vki iij', 1 í;,’H'»5 r.or«( n Lis riíÍYb jji' , t/f l3W kt...lsdjc Y , 'Sin >»n:;i<’r'fa of sk míyoc íüliO «iL¿á »i.lí-w i t '<» i-*v. T l ,Í!stl IK ihf .lí’i'ti'-,^hJí j,i.| ■‘‘«s iviH'íVtot ; ’> í¿5 íi¡f t.sác ’.i ,>r íl;o iT.jjynT oíh-'1)^ Li-; 3J tiHUTí^ ,y.: , :3lii‘?J tí.Y Y
Winder, for the Appellant;
and by
W. Dorsey, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
The Court
dissented from the opinion, of the County Court, on the ground that a minor could do no act to affect his rights, nor could his guardian for him. That the guardian of a minor importing a slave, did not entitle him. to freedom, nor did the assent of the minor, during his minority, give such title.
JUDGMENT REVERSE?,