Harriet Scott vs. Irene Emerson
D.B. Hill, for respondent.

1st. The court rightly instructed the jury, that the taking and holding the appellee as a slave at and , entitled him to his freedom. The fact that they were military posts, does not affect his rights.

View original image: Page  000
[missing figure]

2nd. Even if he could not acquire a right to his freedom in consequence the right of the deceased Dr. EmersonEmerson to employ and have servants for his own use there, he would acquire such freedom by being left by the deceased in the service of others as a slave, after he himself was removed, by orders to a different post. JuliaJulia vs. McKinny , 3 Mo. Rep. 193; WilsonWilson vs. Melvin , 4 Mo. Rep. 592; NatNat vs. Ruddle , 3 Mo. 282; RalphRalph vs. DuncanDuncan , 2 Mo. 139.

3rd. The ordinance of 1787 is a valid and binding law. It has often been recognized by this court: WinnyWinny vs. WhitesideWhitesides , 1 Mo. 334; MaryMary vs. Tippin et al . 1 Mo. 520; Lagrange vs. ChoteauChoteau , 2 Mo. 19; Theoteste vs. ChoteauChoteau 2 Mo. 116; VincentVincent vs. DuncanDuncan , 2 Mo. 174; RalphRalph vs. DuncanDuncan , 2 Mo. 139.