Case Name: John Johnson v. Moses Lemons
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-05
Citations: 2 Bail. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Johnson v. Moses Lemons.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
John Johnson v. Moses Lemons.
The plaintiff having caused the defendant to be indicted for harbouring bis fugitive slave, under the act of 1821, which provides, that a white person harbouring a fugitive slave “ shall be liable to be indicted for a misdemeanor, or prosecuted in a civil action of damages, at the election of the owner, or person injuredHeld, that he could not afterwards maintain an action for the services of the slave during the time he ivas harboured; and that it was immaterial, whether he sued for the tort, or on the implied contract, at common law, or under the act.
' Tried before Mr. Justice Earle, at Chester, Spring Term, 1831.
This was a suit by summary process, setting forth, “that in the month of January, 1829, the defendant of his own wrong, became possessed of a certain slave of the plaintiff, and wrongfully detained him from the plaintiff for three months, during which time he used aud received, unjustly and wrongfully the services of the said slave, to the damage of the plaintiff eighty-five dollars.” Plea in bar, that the plaintiff had caused the defendant to be indicted, under the act of 1821, for harbouring the said slave during the said time.
Per curiam.
The act of 1821, puts the plaintiff to his election, to indict the defendant, or to prosecute his “ civil action for damages.” Acts of 1821, p. 20. From the phraseology of this process, it may be regarded either as an action of trespass, or an action of assumpsit on the implied contract: Treating it in either view, and admitting that it is not strictly “ a civil action for damages” within the act, the question is, whether an action under the act, or its substitute an indictment, would not be a bar. A party may waive a tort, Lightly v. Clouston, 1 Taunt. 114; but this surely does not mean, that a plaintiff may maintain two actions for the same thing. A recovery in the present action would certainly bar a special action for damages under the act; and in like manner an action under the act would defeat the present suit, and an indictment must have the same effect. The act does not accumulate means of redress for the plaintiff’s injury ; it increases the number, but puts him to his election : and the plaintiff cannot complain, since it is own voluntary act, which defeats his civil action. Judgment for defendant.
The plaintiff now moved to reverse the judgment, on the ground, that the present action was not barred under the act of 1821.
Gregg, for the motion.
An action for harbouring, and an action for the services of the slave, after the offence of harbouring was complete, are distinct things. The present action is for the latter; aud it is the former only which is barred by the act.
Mills, contra.

Opinion:
Harper, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We do not think it necessary to add any thing to the reasoning of the presiding Judge, which seems to us entirely satisfactory. The motion is refused.