HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0058 and id is 1 raw text is: WEBSTER V. SPENCER
referred to by my Lord Chief Justice, seem to me to be conclusive on the subject.
I think, therefore, that we ought not to disturb this verdict.
Holroyd J. However much I may regret that any damages can be recoverable for
such a subject as this, yet I think we are bound to say that this plaintiff is entitled to
them. I agree with the construction which has been put on the 58 G. 3, c. 36; and
I think, that even independently of that Act, the action [358] would have been
maintainable for the loss of the slaves.
Best J. The statutes which have been referred to, speak in just terms of indigna-
tion of the horrible traffic in human beings ; but they speak only in the name of the
British nation. The declaration of the British Legislature, that the slave-trade is
contrary to justice and humanity, cannot affect the subjects of other countries, or
prevent them from carrying on this trade out of the limits of the British dominions.
The assertion of a right to controul the subjects of other States in this respect, would
be inconsistent with that independence which we acknowledge that every foreign
Government possesses. If a ship be acting contrary to the general law of nations,
she is thereby subject to confiscation ; but it is impossible to say that the slave-trade
is contrary to what may be called the common law of nations. It was, until lately,
carried on by all the nations of Europe. A practice so sanctioned can only be
rendered illegal by the consent of all the powers. Most of the States of Christendom
have now consented to the abolition of the slave-trade, and concurred with us in
declaring it to be unjust and inhuman. The subjects of any of these States could
not, I think, maintain an action in the Courts of this country for any injury happen-
ing to them in the prosecution of this trade; but Spain has reserved to herself a riht
of carrying it on in that part of the world where this transaction occurred. Her
subjects could not legally be interrupted in buying slaves in that part of the globe,
and have a right to appeal to the justice of this [359] country for any injury sus-
tained by them from such an interruption. These principles are confirmed by the
-decisions of the Court of Admiralty, and also by a judgment of Sir William Grant,
pronounced at the Cock-Pit. The cases to which I allude are, The Fortuna, The Donna
Marianna, and The Diana, in the Admiralty Court; and The Admedie, before the
Privy Council (a). These cases establish this rule, that ships, which belong to
-countries that have prohibited the slave-trade, are liable to capture and condemnation,
if found employed in such trade; but that the subjects of countries which permit the
prosecution of this trade, cannot be interrupted while carrying it on. It is clear,
from these authorities, that the slave-trade is not condemned by the general law of
nations. The subjects of Spain have only to look to the municipal laws of their own
-country, and cannot be affected by any laws made by our Government. The rule for
reducing the damages, in this case, must therefore be refused.
Rule refused.
([360] WEBSTER AND WOODYER, Executrix and Executor of Heatley, against
SPENCER. Tuesday, January 25th, 1820. One of two executors having alone
proved the will, had received a debt due to the testator, which by his will was
appropriated to the payment of specific legacies to his grandchildren, with
interest thereon, and afterwards permitted the money to be lent out to a third
person, by whom it was paid to A. A., on being applied to by the executor,
acknowledged that he had received the money, and that it belonged to the
testator's grand-children, but refused to pay it over to the executor. Held, that
both executors might join in an action brought to recover the money against A. :
Held, also, that it does not amount to a devastavit, if an executor lends out
on private security money belonging to the testator, but not wanted for the
immediate uses of the will, provided he exercises a fair and reasonable discretion
on the subject.
[Discussed, Heath v. Chilton, 1844, 12 Mee. & W. 638.]
Assumpsit for money lent, &c. by testator. The declaration contained counts
upon promises to the testator in his life-time, and also to the plaintiffs after his death.
'There were also two counts, one for money had and received to the use of the
(a) Dodson's Ad. Rep. 81, 91, 95.
3 B3. & ALD. $58.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0058&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)