About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Pierre Menard, Plaintiff in Error vs. Aspasia, Defendant in Error 505 (1831)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0128 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM 1831. PIERRE MENARD, PLAINTIFP IN ERROR V.S'. ASPASIA, DE- FENDANT IN ERROR. The mother of Aspasia, a coloured woman, was born a slave at Kaskaskiz, in Illinois, previous to 1787, and before that country was conquered for Vir- ginia. Aspasia was born in Illinois subsequent to the passage of the ordinance for the government of that territory. Aspasia was afterwards sent as a slave to the state of lissouri. In Missouri Aspasia claimed to be free, under the ordi- nance for the government of the territory of the United States northi est of the river Ohio, passed 13th July 1787. The supreme court of Missoui decided that Aspasia was free, and Menard, who claimed her as his slave, brought this writ of error under the 25th section of the act of 1789, claiming to reverse the judgment of that court. Held, that the case is not within the provisions of the 25th section of the act of 1789. The provisions of the compact which relate to property, and to rights, are general. They refer to no specific property or class of rights: it is impossible, therefore, judicially, to limit their application. If it were admitted that Aspa- sia is the property of the plaintiff in error, and the court were to take jurisdic- tion of the cause under the provisions of the ordinance, must they not on the same ground interpose their jurisdictiun in all other controversies respecting property, which was acquired in the north-western territory. Whatever right may be claimed to have originated under the ordinance of 1787; it would seem, that a right to the involuntary service of an individual could not have had its source in that, instrument. It declares that there shall nof be slavery nor involuntary servitude in the territory. If this did not destroy a vested right in slaves, it at least did not create or strengthen that right. If the decision of the supreme court of Missouri had been against Aspasia, it might have been contended that the revising power of this court, under the 25th section of-the judiciary act, could be exercised. In such a case the de- cision would have been against the express provision of the ordinance.in favour of liberty; and on that ground, if that instrument could be considered under the circumstances as an act of congress, within the 25th section, the jurisdiction of this court would be unquestionable. But the decision was not against, but in favour of the express provision'of the ordinance. The general provisions of the ordinance of 1787, as to the rights of property, cannot give jurisdiction to this court. They do not come within the 25th section of the judiciary act. ERROR from the supreme court of the state of Missouri. An action of assault and battery was instituted in the cir- cuit court for the county of St Louis, in the state of Missouri, by Aspasia, a woman of colour, to establish her right to free-- dom. By consent of the parties, and in conformity with the law of that state, the factq were submitted to the determina tion of the court without the intervention of a jury, VOL. V.-S 0

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most