Dred Scott, Plaintiff in error, v. John F. A. Sandford.
Supreme Court of the United States
60 U.S. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691
December, 1856 Term
The Case
It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit Court
by Scott against Sandford.
Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought
by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State
court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ
of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed,
and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to
await the decision of the case now in question.
The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford
had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott,
his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott,
his children.
Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea:
DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court. APRIL TERM, 1854.
And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes
and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance
of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action,
and each and every one of them, (if any such have accrued to the said
Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction
of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts
of the State of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff, Dred
Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his
declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors
were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold
as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore,
he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance
of the action aforesaid.
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
To this plea there was a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued in
April, 1854, when the court gave judgment that the demurrer should be sustained.
In May, 1854, the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement between counsel,
and with the leave of the court, pleaded in bar of the action:
- Not guilty.
- That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property of the
defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him,
and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to
do.
- That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in
the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant
had, as to them, only acted in the same manner, and in virtue of the
same legal right.
In the first of these pleas, the plaintiff joined issue; and to the
second and third filed replications alleging that the defendant, of his
own wrong and without the cause in his second and third pleas alleged,
committed the trespasses, &c.
The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts, viz:
In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr.
Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that
year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri
to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held
him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time
last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military
post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on
the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper
Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north
of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north
of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in a slavery
at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year
1838.
In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the
plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who
belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said
Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military
post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave
until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said
Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr.
Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the
year 1838.
In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling,
with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master
and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza
and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration,
are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and
was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the
State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven
years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post
called Jefferson Barracks.
In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said
Harriet and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the
State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed
the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as
slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each
of them as slaves.
At the times mentioned in the Plaintiff's declaration, the defendant,
claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff,
Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect,
however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right
his slaves at such times.
Further proof may be given on the trial for either party.
It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in
his favor; that on a writ of error to the Supreme Court, the judgment
below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where
it has been continued to await the decision of this case.
In May, 1854, the cause went before a jury, who found the following
verdict, viz: "As to the first issue joined in this case, we of the
jury find the defendant not guilty; and as to the issue secondly above
joined, we of the jury find that before and at the time when, &c., in
the first count mentioned, the said Dred Scott was a negro slave, the
lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above
joined, we, the jury, find that before and at the time when, &c., in
the second and third counts mentioned, the said Harriet, wife of said
Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott,
were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant."
Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the defendant.
After an ineffectual motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the
following bill of exceptions.
On the trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain
the issues on his part, read to the jury the following agreed statement
of facts, (see agreement above.) No further testimony was given to the
jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give
to the jury the following instruction, viz:
"That, upon the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to
find for the plaintiff. The court refused to give such instruction to
the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and there duly excepted."
The court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion
of the defendant:
"The jury are instructed, that upon the facts in this case, the
law is with the defendant."
The plaintiff excepted to this instruction.
Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court.
It was argued at December term, 1855, and ordered to be reargued at
the present term.
|