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

Francis Lagrange, alias Isidore, a Man of Colour, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Pierre Chouteau, Jun. U.S. 287 (1830)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0134 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM 1830. FRuzcis LAGRA GE, ALIAS ISIDnOE, A M.t oF CoiLoui, PAmnTIFF Im ERROR Vi. PIERRE CHOETEAU, JUN. After the decision of the case in the supreme court of the state of Missouri, the plaintiff presented a petition for a rehearing, claiming his freedom under the provisions of the brdiuance of congress of the 13th of July 1787, for the gov- ernment of the territory of the United States north west of the jiver Ohio. The supreme court refused to grant the rehearing; and the plaintiff prosecuted a writ of error to this court under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789. Held, that as the petition for rehearing forms no part of the record, it cannot be noticed. The jurisdiction of this court depends on the matter disclosed in the bill of exceptions. ERROR from the supreme court of the state of Missouri. An action of trespass vi et armis was brought in the state circuit court of the county of St Louis, state of Missouri, by the plaintiffin error, amian ofcolour, against Pierre Chouteau, the defendaift, for the purpose of trying his right to freedom. The judgment of the circuit court was against the plaintiff; and on an ippeal to the supreme court of Missouri, that judgment was affirmed. The case was brought before this court by writ of error ter the supreme court of Missouri, under-the twenty-fifth section oat the act to establish judicial courts of the United States, passed on the 29th of September 1789., The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. Mr Kane, for the defepdant in error,.objected to the court taking jurisdiction of the case; as it did not come within the provisions of the twenty-ifth section of the act of congres's. It c~uld not be found, on the most careful examination of the record, that the construction of any act of congress had been brought into question in the cou'rts of Missouri, *here the suit was originally entertained. All the questions in the case before those courts might have been and were decided without reference to the act'of congress. The claim to free- dom, asserted by the plaintiff, was left to the jury by the court before which it was tried ; and if in any of the instruc-

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