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/ssactsengr0186 and id is 1 raw text is: WILLIAMS V. BROW14
and if he did not pay those damages which a jury might give, I should think they
would have authority to exclude him, because that would not be a partial regulation,
but would affect all mankind alike, and every man who did not comply would be
excluded. Therefore we are of [69] opinion, that under the circumstances of this case,
this action well lies, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover. I heartily recommend
to the East India Company, as well worth their consideration, to reflect whether it
would not be better that they should obtain the sanction of the Legislature as to the
regulation of their sales, not only with respect to tea, but with respect to all other
commodities.
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
WILLIAMS v. BROWN. Feb. 10th, 1802.
Plaintiff agreed to serve as a seaman during a voyage to and from the West Indies:
on his arrival there he was claimed as a runaway slave, and delivered up to his
master; whereupon it was agreed between the Plaintiff, his master, and the captain,
that upon payment of a sum of money by the captain to the master the latter should
manumit the Plaintiff, he covenanting to serve the captain three years at certain
stipulated wages. The Plaintiff was accordingly manumitted and having served
the captain upon the homeward voyage, commenced an action against him to recover
wages for that voyage upon a quantum meruit. Held that he was estopped by his
covenant from claiming more than the sum stipulated.
Indebitatus assumpsit for service performed by the Plaintiff as a sailor on board
the Holderness, of which the Defendant was master. The cause was tried before
Lord Alvanley Ch. J. at the Guildhall Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, when a
verdict was found for the Plaintiff under his Lordship's direction, with liberty to the
Defendant to apply to the Court to have that verdict set aside and a nonsuit entered.
The circumstances of the case were as follow. The Plaintiff, who was a negro, in
November 1797, entered at London on board the Holderness, bound for Grenada,
as an ordinary seaman out and home: on the arrival of the Holderness at Grenada
the Plaintiff was claimed as a runaway slave by Mr. Hardman his former master, and
delivered to him; and thereupon the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and Mr. Hardman, met
and agreed, that on payment of 30 joes by the Defendant to Mr. Hardman, the latter
should manumit the Plaintiff, which was accordingly done by a regular instrument of
manumission ; and the Plaintiff on the same day entered into an indenture, in which,
describing himself as a free black man of the island of Grenada, he covenanted with
the Defendant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, to repair and go on board
such ship or vessel as the Defendant should appoint, to parts beyond the seas, and
continue on board such ship or vessel at such place or places as the Defendant might
have occasion for his services, and during the term of three years faithfully serve in
the capacity of a sailor or such other service as he should be capable to do and perform
as a covenant servant, according to the order and direction of the Defendant [70] and
his assigns, without departing from or leaving the said service: and the Defendant,
for himself, his executors, and administrators, covenanted to pay to the Plaintiff for
the first year 151., for the second 201., and for the third 251., by quarterly payments.
In consequence of this the Plaintiff returned on board the Holderness, and served
as a sailor on the voyage home, and for his wages in that voyage the present action
was commenced, the wages for the outward bound voyage having been paid, as well
as the money stipulated for by the indenture.
A rule nisi for entering a nonsuit having been obtained on a former day,
Shepherd Serjt. now shewed cause, and insisted that the act of manumission and
the indenture must be considered as parts of one transaction, the manumission being
the consideration of the Plaintiff's entering into the indenture; that the Defendant
therefore had taken an undue advantage of the Plaintiff's situation, since the latter
must be presumed to have been willing to enter into any contract for the sake of
obtaining his freedom ; that he might have been induced to bind himself to the Defen-
dant for life, and thus only have exchanged one sort of slavery for another, and that
the Court therefore must hold an indenture into which the Plaintiff had been driven
by such circumstances to be void, as obtained from him under a species of duress: and
8 Eft & PUL. 69.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0186&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)