Case Name: Black, Bates, and Parmington vs. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1832-08
Citations: 3 Yer. 588
Docket Number: 
Parties: Black, Bates, and Parmington vs. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Black, Bates, and Parmington vs. The State.
It is not competent for a defendant indicted for forcibly taking' property from the possession of another, to show title to the property taken, upon the trial oí the indictment.
When two or more persons claim a negro, and she is in the possession of one of them, the other cannot take her by violence; if he do, he is liable to be indicted.
The charge in the hill of indictment is, that the plaintiffs, on the night of the 24th October, 1830, with force and arms, to wit, with clubs, knives, &c. did enter the dwelling house of the prosecutor, Marshall, he being then thereof possessed, and did then and there take from and out df said dwelling house, and from the possession of the said Marshall, one negro woman, a slave for life, of the value of $300. A second count charges the same facts, except breaking the house. The defendants were found guilty. On the trial they insisted on the right to show by evidence a title to the property, but the court refused to hear the evidence. The judge instructed the jury, that every man must seek to redress his own wrongs, by due course of law. One having lost property, may, when he finds it, lawfully retake it, if in the act of recaption he commit no breach of the peace, or violate the person or personal rights of another. The peace and harmony of society must be preserved. It is of more importance than that the defendant should be delayed in obtaining possession of the negro, if he even had the unquestioned title thereto. To allow the mode of redress adopted in this instance, would lead to dangerous consequences. Men are not permitted to go in the night time, and in unusual numbers, forcibly and violently to enter the private dwellings of citizens, to the terror and alarm of families, to get possession of their property. They can have and use the process of the law; and they act at their peril when they proceed without it. If one entered, and the others were aiding and abetting, all were guilty. A new trial was moved for and overruled.
Mr. James Rucks, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Wm. B. Campbell, Atíy. Geni, for the State.

Opinion:
Peck, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
We are of opinion, the evidence offered was properly rejected. The circuit judge, in the charge to the jury, has given the proper reasons for it. With the charge of the court we accord. Men are not permitted to redress tfteir own wrongs, or to restore themselves to lost rights at their own will and pleasure; others have rights also. The process of the law and the courts, are open to them, and to these resort must he had, not to force and acts of violence. 2 Tenn. Rep. 97. It was supposed that the indictment did not show a possession of the house by Marshall, at the time of the entry; that is not so. The bill charges, that he was then and there possessed of the house, and that the negro, with force and arms, with clubs, knives, &c. was taken from and out of the house, and out of the possession of said Marshall. It is a sufficient indictment, and the charge of the court to the jury, and the opinion upon the admission of the evidence offered being correct, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.