Dred ScottDred Scott , Plaintiff in Error, versusv.John F. A. SandfordJohn F A Sandford .
This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United StatesUnited States for the district of MissouriMissouri.
It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court by ScottScott against SandfordSanford .
Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by ScottScott for his freedom in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court of St. LouisSt Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit CourtCircuit Court , where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question.
The declaration of ScottScott contained three counts: one, that SandfordSanford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted , his wife; and one, that he had assaulted and , his children.
SandfordSanford appeared, and filed the following plea:
Dred ScottDred Scott versusv.John F. A. SandfordJohn F A Sandford . Plea to the jurisdiction of the Court.
April Term, 1854.
And the said John F. A. SandfordJohn 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 of them, (if any such have accrued to the said Dred ScottDred Scott ,) accrued to the said Dred ScottDred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of , for that, to wit: the said plaintiff, Dred ScottDred Scott , is not a citizen of the State of , 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 SandfordSanford is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment, whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid.
John F. A. SandfordJohn 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:
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. EmersonEmerson , who was a surgeon in the army of the . In that year, 1834, said Dr. EmersonEmerson took the plaintiff from the State of to the military post at , in the State of , and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. EmersonEmerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at to the military post at , situate on the west bank of the , in the Territory known as , acquired by the of , and situate . Said Dr. EmersonEmerson held the plaintiff in slavery at , from said last mentioned date until the year 1838.
In the year 1835, HarrietHarriet , who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of , who belonged to the army of the . In that year, 1835, said took said HarrietHarriet to said , 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 unto the said Dr. EmersonEmerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. EmersonEmerson held said HarrietHarriet in slavery at said until the year 1838.
In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said HarrietHarriet , at said , with the consent of said Dr. EmersonEmerson , who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. ElizaEliza and LizzieLizzie , named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. ElizaEliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, , and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of , at the military post called .
In the year 1838, said Dr. EmersonEmerson removed the plaintiff and said HarrietHarriet , and their said daughter ElizaEliza , from said to the State of , where they have ever since resided,
Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. EmersonEmerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said HarrietHarriet , ElizaEliza , and LizzieLizzie , 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 , HarrietHarriet , ElizaEliza , and LizzieLizzie , 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 ScottDred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court of St. LouisSt Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that on a writ of error to the Supreme CourtSupreme Court the judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit CourtCircuit 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 ScottDred 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 HarrietHarriet , wife of said Dred ScottDred Scott , and ElizaEliza and LizzieLizzie , the daughters of the said Dred ScottDred 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.
It was now argued by Mr. Blair and Mr. G. F. Curtis for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. GeyerGeyer and Mr. JohnsonJohnson for the defendant in error.
The reporter regrets that want of room will not allow him to give the arguments of counsel; but he regrets it the less, because the subject is thoroughly examined in the opinion of the court, the opinions of the concurring judges, and the opinions of the judges who dissented from the judgment of the court.