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

John L. Harris, surviving partner of Rowan and Harris, v. Hiram G. Runnels U.S. 79 (1851)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0262 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1851. 79 Harris v. Runnels. wrong in this transaction, because the owners of land in New Madrid were not compelled to accept the provisions of the'act; if they did so, it was a voluntary act on their part, and their assent should be evidenced by some affirmative act done by them. There is, however, in this case, no ground for implication. All presumption of assent is utterly excluded -by the evidence of Delisle himself, who states that he was wholly ignorant of the existence of the act of Congress on that subject until the year 1842. He could not be divested of his land in New Madrid until he assented to the exchange, and he could give no assent until he was informed of the act of Congress making provision for those whose land had been injured. The title, then, to the land in New ladrid remained in Delisle up to the year 1842, when he assented to what had been done by Lang- ham and Hempstead in his name; and, as Congress only intended to grant other land on condition that the title to the land injured should revert 'to, and vest in the government, no title could pass to Delisle until 1842, prior to which time the State of Missouri had acqluired title to the land in controversy. It is proper to remark that, on the last ground of defence, we have adopted the views, in part, expressed by one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri, whose opinion is found in the record. Our conclusion is that, on both grounds of defence, the State courts expounded the law applicable to the facts correctly, and that therefore the judgment should be affirmed. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is, hereby affirmed, with costs. JoHN L. IARRIS, SURVIVING PARTNER OF ROWAN AND HARRIS, V. IRAM G. RUNNELS. Where a defendant, when sued upon a note, set up, as a defence, that the note was given for an illegal consideration, the whole statute must be examined in order to di5cov,. r whether or not the legislature intended to prevent coturts of justice from enftrcing contracts relating to the act prohibited.

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